In accordance with notice to members of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council, a meeting was held on May 10, 2005 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
Jerry Zarrella
Ray Coia
Bob Ballou
Dave Abedon
Joe Shekarchi
Joe Paolino
Tom Ricci

STAFF PRESENT

Grover Fugate, CRMC Executive Director
Ken Anderson, CRMC Senior Engineer
Tom Medeiros, CRMC Engineer
David Alves, CRMC Aquaculture Coordinator
Amy Silva, CRMC Environmental Scientist
Brian Goldman, Legal Counsel

1. Chair Tikoian called the meeting to order at 6:02 P.M.

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

Mr. Coia seconded by Mr. Zarrella moved approval of the April 26, 2005 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.

Mr. Coia congratulated Chair Tikoian on his reappointment as Chairman of the Council.

Chair Tikoian introduced and welcomed Laura Rickerson, Public Educator and Information Coordinator to the CRMC staff. Chair Tikoian stated that Ms. Rickerson would assist in public education matters and let the general public know what the CRMC does and what the council does. Chair Tikoian said she would act as the formal spokesperson with the media when the Chair and Executive Director are not available and do press releases.

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

5. CONTINUANCES:

2005-02-093 KAREN SHERMAN – Construct a two-bedroom residence; denitrifying ISDS and public water. Located at plat 88-4, lot 3; Succotash Road, South Kingstown, RI.

The applicant was not present. Chair Tikoian stated that the applicant’s attorney, Donald Packer sent a fax today stating that their engineer submitted new plans to DEM, which required new ISDS approval, and he discussed it with the Executive Director and Mr. Medeiros and continued the application.

2004-06-002 ALICE HOHLER and HOPE MAYNARD -- Riprap revetment (approx. 2,500 linear feet total), beach nourishment and construct shoreline access stairs, per proposed plans. Located at plat 369, lot 111; 597 Buttonwoods Avenue, Warwick, RI.

The applicants were not present. Chair Tikoian noted that the application had been continued to allow the applicant to work with staff and meet with them to work out a compromise. The application was continued.

6. PUBLIC HEARING APPLICATIONS.

GREENWICH BAY SPECIAL AREA MANAGEMENT PLAN

Greenwich Bay is a five square mile estuary that provides people with food, shelter, transportation, trade, and recreational opportunities and remains a valuable commercial fishing area and recreational harbor surrounded by a 21-square-mile suburban watershed comprising three communities: Warwick, East Greenwich, and, to a smaller degree, West Warwick.  Greenwich Bay experiences many of the problems common to growing suburban coastal communities, such as poor water quality, the loss of natural habitats, displacement of traditional commercial fisheries, privatization of the shoreline, and a lack of coordination between neighboring communities.

In accordance with its federal and state legislative mandates to carry-on ecosystem-based planning activities, the Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) has developed a special area management plan for the Greenwich Bay region of Rhode Island.  Special area management plans (SAMPs) provide for increased specificity in protecting significant natural resources, reasonable coastal-dependent economic growth, improved protection of life and property in hazardous areas, including those areas likely to be affected by land subsidence, sea level rise, or fluctuating water levels, and improved predictability in governmental decision making.  The Greenwich Bay SAMP is an examination of watershed resources, uses, problems, and institutions as contained in an integrated coastal management plan to protect and restore the vital ecological and economic resources of Greenwich Bay.  Policies, regulations, and actions contained within the SAMP are designed to ensure the preservation of the vital elements of the ecosystem, to guide future development within land and water limitations, and to resolve existing and anticipated problems.

The Coastal Resources Management Council has developed this plan with the municipalities, other federal and state agencies, and the concerned citizens of the watershed to address the issues affecting Greenwich Bay and its communities in a coordinated and collaborative fashion.

Chair Tikoian opened the public hearing. Mike Compata, URI Coastal Sea Grants/Resources Center said they had developed the East Greenwich SAM Plan and worked on it for three (3) years. Mr. Compata gave council members a briefing on the East Greenwich SAM Plan. He said they held 20 public meetings with the Citizens Advisory Council and 14 meetings with the Technical Advisory Council. Mr. Campata stated that they came up with 450 pages of visions for Greenwich Bay and that the plan had five goals. Mr. Campata recommended that the Council adopt the East Greenwich SAM Plan. Chair Tikoian appreciated the work done between URI and CRMC on the East Greenwich SAM Plan. Chair Tikoian called for public comment. Dan Gregan, Warwick Planning Department, read a letter in support of the East Greenwich SAM Plan on behalf of Mayor Scott Avedesian. Dick Langseth, Executive Director of the East Greenwich Watershed Group, stated that they were in support of the SAM Plan and requested that the council adopt the plan. Chair Tikoian thanked them for their support. There was no further public comment. Chair Tikoian closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Lemont thanked Mr. Abedon for his help as Chair of the subcommittee and noted that he ran a good show. He also thanked Virginia and Susan and the people at URI for their assistance. Mr. Abedon, seconded by Vice Chair Lemont moved approval of the East Greenwich SAM Plan with all staff technical comments. Chair Tikoian stated that DEM had just submitted comments on the plan and said he would send DEM’s comments to the Policy and Planning Subcommittee for review and if they find the comments are necessary and feel they need to be incorporated in the plan that the Council would take action. Mr. Balou asked if the council had received comments from the public during the public comment period. Mr. Fugate replied no. Mr. Balou stated that DEM’s 11 pages of comments were a massaging of the document and stated they supported passage of the East Greenwich SAM Plan subject to the comments DEM submitted. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

7. APPLICATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN OUT TO NOTICE FOR 30 DAYS AND ARE
BEFORE THE FULL COUNCIL FOR FINAL DECISION:

2002-10-038 SALT POND OYSTER COMPANY – DAVID ROEBUCK -- Modification of existing aquaculture to increase the farms leased acres by 6.1 acres. Located in Point Judith Pond, Narragansett, RI.

David Roebuck, the applicant was present. Mr. Alves gave council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Alves stated that the application was to modify an existing aquaculture lease doubling the size of the aquaculture and they ran this as a new application due to its size. Mr. Alves said the location of the aquaculture on the map was part of a preliminary determination and the town liked this location better. Mr. Alves noted that they had received a letter in 2003 on the first application but no comments were received during this public comment period. Chair Tikoian had a question on the marker that the town wanted the applicant to leave out. Mr. Alves replied that he did not feel the marker was an issue. Chair Tikoian stated that it was the rule of CRMC to have four (4) markers on site for an aquaculture. Mr. Roebuck had no objections to having the four (4) markers. Mr. Coia, seconded by Mr. Sahagian moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

2005-01-039 STEVE CRANDALL – One acre aquaculture farm for the culture of American Oysters, Quahogs, and Bay Scallops. Located in Winnapaug Pond, Westerly, RI.

Steve Crandall, the applicant was present. Mr. Alves gave council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Alves stated that the applicant applied for a one-acre aquaculture lease in Winnapaug Pond. He said they received comments from the town and landowners and as part of a preliminary determination the location of the lease was relocated slightly to the east. Mr. Alves stated that they received a letter today which Mr. Fugate passed out to council members. Mr. Alves said there was a total of six-acres being cultivated for aquaculture in the pond. Mr. Crandall stated that the application was to help the shellfish industry with the lack of shellfish. He said you need to grow product to sell product. Mr. Crandall felt that aquacultures were good programs. Mr. Balou asked Mr. Alves if the applicant and the town were in sink on the location and the location issue had been resolved. Mr. Alves replied that he had not received any written response from the town but that he spoke with Mr. Trombino from the town and he said the town had no objection to the application. Mr. Sahagian, seconded by Mr. Coia, Mr. Paolino and Mr. Ricci moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

*Chair Tikoian stated that the attorney for the objectors had arrived late and he spoke with CRMC legal counsel and advised the objectors’ attorney to write a letter to CRMC legal counsel asking them to re-open the matter so they can visit the objection to the application.

2004-11-013 PETER BUCKLEY & DANIEL PELLEY – Construct and maintain a residential subdivision consisting of two existing developed lots and 5 new lots for a total of 7 lots. Proposal includes cul de sac road, sewer and water tie-ins and stormwater management. Located at plat 365, lot 292, 293; 512/522 Long Street, Warwick, RI.

Brent Narkowicz, Horizon Designs, was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Anderson gave council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Anderson stated that the application was for a 7-lot subdivision on a 4.7-acre parcel which currently supports two dwellings and an additional two lots. Mr. Anderson said they recommended stipulations for a conservation easement and a buffer management plan. Mr. Narkowicz said he was familiar with the stipulations and agreed to them. Mr. Balou had a question on a stipulation no page 4 which allowed five (5) years of mowing then the area had to be returned to its natural state. Mr. Fugate explained that the applicant who currently owns the lot is elderly and wants to mow the area and plans to sell his property in five years so the buffer would be phased in. Mr. Sahagian, seconded by Mr. Paolino moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

2004-06-20 INVESTCO -- Rhode Island Assent to Alter Freshwater Wetlands in the Vicinity of the Coast for the purposes of: constructing a three (3) bedroom dwelling and attached deck, permeable driveway and landscaping grading. The dwelling will be serviced by local sewer and water tie-ins. Proposed alterations to freshwater wetlands in the vicinity of the coast include: construction of a three (3) bedroom dwelling, a permeable driveway and parking area and landscaping planting and grading. The project, as proposed, will result in the alteration and/or disturbance of at least ( 3,875 ) square feet, or (0.11) acres of freshwater wetland as well as ( no) linear feet of watercourse as noted above. Located at plat N-R, lots 541 and 542; Bonnet Shores, Fairway Drive, Narragansett, RI.

Chair Tikoian recused himself.
Vice Chair Lemont presided over the application.
Thomas Santilli, owner of Investo, the applicant was present. Joseph DeAngelis, attorney for the applicant, Craig Carrigan, the applicant’s engineer and Scott Rabideau, the applicant’s wetland biologist were also present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Medeiros gave council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Medeiros stated that the application was a proposal for a three-bedroom single-family residence serviced by local sewer, a permeable driveway and a paved lot. Mr. Medeiros stated that the activity was entirely in the wetland area. He said the staff engineer and biologist recommended denial of the application as it was inconsistent with Rule 11 of the Freshwater Wetlands rules. Mr. Medeiros noted that there would be 3,635 s.f. of wetland altered and filled in. Vice Chair Lemont asked how big the lot was. Mr. Medeiros replied 8,250 s.f. and said that the work cannot be moved out of the wetland area. Mr. Medeiros said there was a question as to whether this was a doable project. Ms. Silva stated on a technical note the denial was based on Rule 11 and also Rule 3 of the wetland rules. Mr. DeAngelis made a brief statement on the application. Mr. DeAngelis stated that this was an unusual application to alter a wetland. He said the applicant was constructing the smallest house possible a 32’ x 24’ house. Mr. DeAngelis stated that every possible mitigation effort had been made and they received all the necessary approvals needed. Mr. DeAngelis said it was up to the council to decide whether the applicant can build a house or not. Mr. Coia, seconded by Mr. Zarrella moved to accept Mr. Carrigan, as a professional engineer. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote. Mr. Carrigan stated that he has worked on this project and developed the plans for the single family home 32’x 24’ with a 10’ x 14’ deck. He said the house would be serviced by public water and sewer and the runoff from the roof would go into a detention swale. Mr. Carrigan explained that they changed the plan for the detention swale in the rear of the property to relocate the pipe and they had verbal approval from the town to address Mr. Medeiros’ concerns. Mr. Carrigan addressed the mitigation factors and explained how the basin would work. He said there was screening proposed to separate the house from the remaining wetland and four posts for the buffer area. Mr. Carrigan said they would be stock piling material during the construction process which was a concern of Mr. Medeiros’. He stated that the materials that cannot be stored onsite would have to be trucked out and there would be three-stock piles. Mr. Carrigan addressed the quagmire issue which will result with construction raised by staff and said to address this they will limit the time period when excavation can occurred from July 15 thru October 15 during the driest season. Mr. Carrigan felt there would be no impact on flood protection and no impact on surface drainage or groundwater. Mr. Carrigan addressed the soil erosion and sediment control issue and stated there would be no impact as they were using hay bales, etc. Mr. Fugate made a clarification on the application and noted that two (2) necessary approvals were needed from the DEM Water Quality Certification and Army Corps. Vice Chair Lemont asked if you visited the site today what you would find. Mr. Carrigan replied a wetland. Vice Chair Lemont asked all accept 12’. Mr. Carrigan stated that 3% of the property was not wetland. Vice Chair Lemont asked if this would cause other owners in the area to apply for similar relief. Mr. Carrigan showed a plan overlay which showed all the wetland areas in this area. Mr. Medeiros noted that the plans mentioned by Mr. Carrigan had not bee submitted to CRMC and had not been reviewed by staff and they have not seen the new information mentioned. Mr. Carrigan said there are 13 lots in this area that are undeveloped but are not attached to town sewers. He noted that there are 10 potential lots in the subdivision that could have development. Vice Chair Lemont said the land is 97% wetland and asked him how many times in his career he has recommended approval on building on a wetland. Mr. Carrigan replied once in Johnston which they built on a wetland. Vice Chair Lemont said there was 3,600+/- s.f. filled and the rest of the land was wetland and would be swampy with mosquitoes and asked what the border was around the house. Mr. Carrigan replied there would be a 12’ border around the house. Mr. Abedon asked if staff would want to review the plan for the relocation of the pipe. Mr. Medeiros replied yes and felt this was a critical part of the application and they needed to see where the water was diverted to go. He said this was a major portion of their review. Vice Chair Lemont asked if staff had not seen a change which was crucial to the application should they proceed on the application. Mr. Fugate replied that the rule said changes to the plans had to be submitted to staff five (5) days prior to the hearing so that staff can review the changes. Vice Chair Lemont asked what action the council can take. Mr. Fugate replied the application could be continued to allow staff to review the changes. Mr. DeAngelis stated that they had verbal approval from the town to move the culvert. Ms. Silva replied that moving an “ASSF” requires review by staff and it needed a permit from the wetland division. Mr. DeAngelis responded that the town has no objection to moving the culvert. Mr. Carrigan felt they would need a staff review. Vice Chair Lemont was concerned with 97% filling of a wetland and felt they needed to be cautious. Mr. DeAngelis felt the council should move forward on the application. Mr. Abedon noted that there were several outstanding approvals from DEM and Army Corps and that staff was requesting review of the changes and asked whether they should proceed. Mr. Zarrella said if the project was not done between July and August they may not be able to get the necessary approvals within that timeframe. Mr. Goldman explained that an Army Corps and DEM Water Quality Certification were not a prerequisite of the Freshwater Wetland rules. Mr. Medeiros stated that the applicant’s engineer made a statement regarding the depth to ground water issue and said that he had requested the applicant get calculations and requested details for information on depths of excavation and none of that data had been received. He said the issues raised in the staff report had not been addressed. Mr. Coia, seconded by Mr. Sahagian moved to move forward on the application tonight. Mr. Ricci asked if the Narragansett Planning and Zoning approvals had been received. Mr. DeAngelis replied yes. Mr. Carrigan also responded that they had received special use permits from the town. Vice Chair Lemont called for a roll call vote. There were four affirmative and 3 opposed. The motion carried. Mr. DeAngelis said he would stipulate to submit a plan on the culvert relocation to staff. Mr. DeAngelis noted that on work under 5,000 s.f. in a wetland the Army Corps defer to CRMC. Mr. Fugate agreed. Mr. Zarrella asked if the applicant paid taxes to the town for a buildable lot and sewer taxes. Mr. Santilli replied yes. Mr. Zarrella asked who was doing the excavation. Mr. Santilli replied he would be doing the excavation. Mr. Zarrella stated that they would be going down 2 ½ feet and build a wall and stack hay bales and put up a silk fence to protect the area. Mr. Santilli replied yes. Mr. Zarrella asked if the property was on the record as a buildable lot. Mr. Santilli replied yes and the lot has sewer hookup. Mr. Medeiros said the applicant’s engineer said if they go down two feet into the land it would be dry and asked what he was basing his decision as it was not based on a site assessment. Mr. Carrigan replied that it was not based on site assessment. Mr. Medeiros felt they could do work to get the necessary calculations needed. Mr. Balou asked how much the applicant paid for the lot. Mr. Santilli replied either $10,000 or $19,000. Mr. Sahagian asked whether the application was properly before the council and thought when an application came before the council that staff had received all information requested. Mr. Medeiros stated that he had requested this information over four months ago and that no information had been received. Mr. Medeiros felt that all the information received was proper for a recommendation of denial of the application. Mr. Rabideau stated that he had been retained in the fall of 2003 and had done the assessment of biological impact. Mr. Rabideau stated that he had done site inspection and follow-up in the spring 2004 and a habitat inspection. His finding was that this was an alteration of a 3,650 s.f. of freshwater wetland and you need to determine if this is a wet wetland or a dry wetland. Mr. Rabideau noted that his habitat value review determined there were small mammals in the area. He said the area dries out in the summer and he had reviewed this in the summer 2004. He said this was a highly developed area in Bonnet Shores and determined that the lots with street frontage could connect to sewers and build. Mr. Abedon asked what other benefits a wetland provides. Mr. Abedon asked what value of the wetland was being taken away and felt that some value of the wetland would be lost. Mr. Rabideau felt this was a narrow focus. Mr. DeAngelis asked his opinion whether approval of the application would have an impact on wildlife habitat. Mr. Rabideau did not feel there would be a significant on wildlife and there would be no impact on aesthetic, scenic value or the environment. Mr. Rabideau said he had a similar situation for a house in Alpine Estates and he received approval from DEM to build a house in biological wetlands. He did not feel this would set a precedent. Mr. Zarrella asked what a forest wetland was. Mr. Rabideau explained that it is made up of red maple and an all tree wetland. Mr. Zarrella asked if the similar application in Alpine Estates had sewer and public water. Mr. Rabideau replied yes. Mr. Zarrella asked what percentage of the lot was wetland. Mr. Rabideau replied not 97%. Mr. Medeiros said he spoke with staff at Freshwater Wetlands and that this type of application was entirely in a biological wetland which was an unusual situation. He said he was not sure DEM would have approved. Mr. Medeiros stated they said there was no impact on mitigation and felt there would be. Mr. Medeiros said he did not see any mitigation for what was being destroyed. Mr. Rabideau said there would be mitigation of 5,000 s.f. of alteration of a wetland and they would put in scenery vegetation and enhancement plantings to help with mitigation. Ms. Silva felt that Rule 3 of the Freshwater Wetlands had not been addressed. Mr. Balou said this was before the council because of a law change that required CRMC to review all wetland applications. He asked Mr. Rabideau if this was sent to DEM for review how likely it would have been approved. Mr. Rabideau said it would have been denied and they would have appealed the denial and worked out a negotiated consent agreement to work out the particulars. Mr. Balou said the applicant’s engineer said there were 10 lots in this area that are similar and this may set a precedent. Mr. Balou asked how many other lots in Rhode Island are same as this. Mr. Rabideau replied there could be hundreds or more. Mr. Zarrella asked what is the line to determine approval on a wetland for CRMC or DEM. Mr. Rabideau replied the seaward side of the line required CRMC approval and the landward side of the line required DEM approval. Mr. Zarrella asked what would happen if CRMC denies the application. Mr. Goldman replied if the application was denied the applicant can appeal it in court. Mr. Zarrella asked if he had worked on this with staff. Mr. Rabideau replied no, the applicant’s engineer worked with staff. Mr. Balou noted that DEM does not normally enter into a consent agreement if the lot is not capable of building on. Vice Chair Lemont stated that if the application was before DEM it would be denied. Mr. Rabideau replied yes. Mr. Medeiros said there would be 20 acres of wetland discharge into type 1 waters and felt this was destroying wetlands. Mr. Balou, seconded by Mr. Abedon moved denial of the application. Vice Chair Lemont called for a roll call vote:

On the motion for denial.

Mr. Zarrella No Mr. Sahagian No
Mr. Balou Yes Mr. Coia No
Mr. Abedon Yes Mr. Ricci No
Vice Chair Lemont Yes

3 Affirmative 4 Negative 0 Absentation

The motion failed.

Vice Chair Lemont and Mr. Balou were appalled and felt that the council’s responsibility was to protect the coastal environment . Mr. Balou felt that the council was sending a signal lout and clear that they were not protecting the state’s environment. Mr. Coia, seconded by Mr. Ricci moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations and a stipulation that the applicant submit a plan for the culvert relocation and permission to move it from the town. Mr. Ricci said he has never seen anything like this before and felt the application was properly before the council by the general laws. Mr. Ricci said he gives the municipalities a lot of weight on their planning and zoning approvals. Vice Lemont said it was an obligation of the council to review data but there was a question on the data. Vice Chair Lemont called for roll call vote:

On the motion for approval.

Mr. Zarrella Yes Mr. Sahagian Yes
Mr. Balou No Mr. Coia Yes
Mr. Abedon No Mr. Ricci Yes
Vice Chair Lemont No

4 Affirmative 3 Negative 0 Absentation

The motion carried.


2004-09-089 MARK BARRETT/GREENWICH COVE CONDOS – Residential boating facility to consist of an access stairway to a 4’ x 220’ fixed timber pier, to a 3’ x 20’ ramp to a 3’ x 10’ float to a 3’ x 40’ T float. Proposed dock will extend 105’ beyond MLW. Located at plat 221, lot 52; 66 Oak Grove Street, Warwick, RI.

Mark Barrett, the applicant was present. Sheila Barrett, the applicant’s sister and an engineer was also present. James Currier, attorney for the objectors, Bay Watch Condominium Association was also present. Mr. Anderson gave council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Anderson stated that the application was for a residential boating facility to consist of a 4’ x 180’ fixed timber pier, ramp and 150 s.f. float. Mr. Anderson stated that the applicant had revised the plan and the “T” configuration at the end of the float to address the property line and side yard off sets. Mr. Anderson said the application meets the 25’ side yard requirements. Mr. Anderson stated that staff recommended that the applicant shorten the length variance to 40’ to get a 3 ½’ depth of water and this would allow 30’ on each side of the dock. Mr. Barrett stated that he wanted to build a 4-boat dock for the condominium association. Mr. Barrett said there are three existing boating facilities in Greenwich Bay and one under construction. He noted that there is a facility 50’ north of there proposed dock and it is 50’ beyond MLW. Mr. Barrett felt they needed the length variance to build the dock. Mr. Barrett said the owners in the condominium association were paying to build the dock. He said their neighbors to the south objected to the “T” float because they felt it encroached their property line so they put the dock out straight. Mr. Barrett state that there is 34” of water at the start of the dock. Ms. Barrett said there were two corrections to the revised plan. She said the revised plan shows the dock at 50’ but the dock is actually at 37.5’ and there is no variance for the square footage of the float needed. Mr. Anderson stated that the dock extends 120’ beyond MLW and requires a 70’ length variance and staff recommended the dock be reduced 40’ and this would require a 30’ variance. Mr. Sahagian stated that the dock extends 80’ seaward of MLW. Mr. Anderson replied it extends 120’ beyond MLW and they recommended it be scaled back 40’. Mr. Sahagian asked what the water depth was at 80’. Mr. Anderson replied there was 40” of water at 80’. Mr. Sahagian asked what the water depth was at 120’. Mr. Anderson replied 78” water depth. Ms. Barrett noted that this would make the float on the shallow end only 14” of water depth. Mr. Anderson replied there is approximately 15” of water at the inbound portion of float. Mr. Barrett said if he had a “T” float at the end of the dock he could dock boats but the objectors objected to the “T” float and the removed the float so they have extend the dock out to get water depth. Mr. Sahagian asked if this was an association dock or a residential dock. Mr. Fugate replied a residential dock. Ms. Barrett noted that the tie pilings were moved from the description of the project. Mr. Anderson said he was aware of this. Mr. Zarrella asked if the boats would have toilet facilities. Mr. Barrett said he did not say the boats would not have toilets. Mr. Zarrella asked how big the boats on the dock would be. Mr. Barrett replied that he had a 30’ boat with a toilet facility and the other boats are smaller than his boat. Mr. Zarrella asked what happens when to the dock slip if a unit is sold. Mr. Barrett replied the designated dock slip would go with the unit and the condominium documents would be amended to show this. Mr. Goldman informed the applicant that CRMC would have to review the condominium documents as they cannot deed the rights to tidal waters and the council protects public trust lands. Mr. Zarrella asked what he will do for pump out for his boat. Mr. Barrett replied he would pump out at the East Greenwich Yacht Club which ¼ of a mile away. James Currier, attorney Bay Watch Condominium Association, submitted a letter of objection to the council. Mr. Currier stated that he was told by the applicant that they had made changes in the plans and that the application met all the requirements of the CRMC program. Mr. Currier wanted to see what changes had been made to the plan and review the new plans. Mr. Currier said their objection was they wanted the dock more than 25’ away from the property setback and they objected to granting a length variance 50’ beyond MLW. Chair Tikoian noted that they were only here for one variance for the length and asked if they were still objecting. Mr. Currier replied yes. Mr. Currier said there was no testimony that they could not build a dock within the 50’ and why a variance was needed. Chair Tikoian asked if this dock would violate the Warwick SAM Plan. Mr. Fugate replied no. Mr. Sahagian asked what the water depth of the dock was a 50’. Mr. Anderson replied there was 16” of water at 50’. Mr. Sahagian stated that the applicant does qualify for some relief. Chair Tikoian agreed but the applicant did not provide enough evidence for the variance requested. Mr. Sahagian asked who the engineer was. Ms. Barrett replied Patricia Walker was the engineer but she was not present. Mr. Coia noted that on page 16 of the staff report it listed the lengths of the boats on the dock and there had been no amendment to the application for the new boat length for Mr. Barrett. Chair Tikoian stated that the staff recommendation on the application is for a 30’ length variance and the dock length be reduced. Mr. Barrett asked what the minimum amount of water was at the float. Mr. Anderson replied his recommendation was to get 40” depth of water at the outboard end of the float and 14” of water at the inbound portion of the float. Mr. Anderson said the water depth ranges from 2’ from the inboard to the outboard portion of the dock and the boat size would have to be limited. Mr. Anderson noted that the CRMC standard water depth is 36” of water and a minimum water depth of 18”. Mr. Sahagian asked what size boat was being replaced on the application. Mr. Barrett replied that 20’ boat was being replaced with the 30’ boat. Chair Tikoian asked to bring the inboard out to get 36’ of water how far out you would have to go. Mr. Anderson said the float would be 50’ beyond MLW and the water depth would range from 40” to 2’ water depths and they would need a 40’ length variance. Vice Chair Lemont wanted to know what the objectors’ objections were. Mr. Currier replied the size of the boats was not addressed. Vice Chair Lemont asked if they did not want a dock in this location. Mr. Currier replied yes and they objected to the dock because it would block their view. He said the objectors would like to testify. Mr. Currier asked if the applicant if any members of the association were here. Mr. Barrett replied no. Mr. Currier asked if they held meetings of the condominium association. Mr. Barrett replied yes. Mr. Currier asked if they had minutes of the meetings. Mr. Barrett replied yes. Marjorie Hynes, President of the Bay Watch Condominium Association, stated that she was the owner of a unit at Bay Watch and that she had not seen the revised plans. Ms. Hynes stated that her condominium association held a meeting in August to oppose development of the residential dock. Ms. Hynes felt the area was already congested and putting another dock in would effect the water use and felt it would reduce property values. Clifford Johnson, VP of the Bay Watch Condominium Association, said he attended their association meetings and they objected to the dock because it would affect their view. He said they had no problem with the application if the application fell within the guidelines of the plan. Mr. Johnson said he had not seen the revised plan and felt their property values would decrease. Mr. Johnson stated that they were concerned with pollution from the boats. Chair Tikoian asked Mr. Currier how long he has been legal council for the objectors. Mr. Currier replied since December 2004. Chair Tikoian asked the applicant when he notified the objector of the revised plan. Mr. Barrett replied February 2005. Mr. Sahagian asked if the Bay Watch Condominiums were waterfront condominiums. Ms. Hynes replied yes. Mr. Ricci stated that it was the CRMC standard to have a 50’ length dock and staff modified the application to reduce the length from 120’ length to a 90’ length. Mr. Barrett explained that he had notified the objector’s attorney of the new revised plan and felt the objectors could have reviewed the plans with CRMC. Mr. Barrett addressed the boat congestion issue raised and said there are 75 moorings out in front of their property for Norton Marina and felt that adding four boats was insignificant. Mr. Barrett said they compromised with staff to reduce the dock length to 90’ but wanted to have the same dock length as the dock next door which is 105’. Mr. Currier said he took the applicant at his word that the plan was in compliance with the CRMC guidelines. Mr. Currier did not feet the applicant met the variance criteria. Vice Chair Lemont asked about the objectors’ letter which had concerns with the water line, riparian line and pipe line. Ms. Hynes replied that this was a different issue. Vice Chair Lemont referred to page 24 and an area that said “site” and shows 3 or 4 different units above the dock and asked if the application ran parallel to the dock next to it. Mr. Johnson replied that there is a train track in front of their property that separates them from the water. Ms. Hynes felt the dock was in their water line. Chair Tikoian explained that the dock is out of the 25’ property line and asked if they objected to the length of the dock. Ms. Hynes replied she wanted to review the revised plan. Mr. Johnson said he was not opposed to the 90’ dock length. Mr. Zarrella said the original objection was to the property line setback which has been met by the applicant and they reduced the length of the dock to 90’. Mr. Zarrella asked if they still objected to the application. Ms. Hynes and Mr. Johnson replied no. Vice Chair Lemont, seconded by Mr. Zarrella moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations and that the dock be 90’ length seaward of MLW and approval of a 40’ length variance. Mr. Balou asked about the mooring field. Mr. Balou stated that the harbor management plan had expired and asked about the setback from the mooring field. Mr. Anderson replied that a 50’ variance would be needed from the mooring field but that it did not apply because their was no harbor management plan in place so staff did not take this into consideration. The objectors noted that there were two towns involved in the harbor management plan Warwick and East Greenwich. Mr. Fugate replied that they gave notification of the application to both the Warwick and East Greenwich town clerks. The motion carried. Mr. Ricci was opposed.

2005-01-032 JEFFREY GAESS – Residential boating facility consisting of a 4’ wide x 100’ long fixed timber pier that leads to a ramp that leads to a 150 s.f. terminal float. The proposed structure extends 90 feet seaward of the cited mean low water mark and therefore a variance to RICRMP Standard 300.4.E.3.K is sought. Located at plat Y-1, lot 234; 75 Wheatfield Cove Road, Narragansett, RI.

Chair Tikoian recused himself.
Vice Chair Lemont presided over the application.
Joseph DeAngelis, attorney for the applicant was present on behalf of the applicant. Herb Sirois, the applicant’s engineer was also present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Medeiros gave council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Medeiros stated that the application was to construct a residential boating facility to consist of a 4’ wide x 100’ long fixed timber pier, ramp and 150 s.f. terminal float in type 1 waters. Mr. Medeiros stated that the application required a length variance because it extended 90’ seaward of the MLW mark. Mr. Medeiros said the water depth is 26” at MLW. He said the application had been out to public notice and that no objections had been received. Mr. Medeiros said a 40’ length variance was requested. Mr. Medeiros stated there was no staff objection to the application. Mr. Medeiros said because the length variance was greater than 25’ they needed CRMC council approval and the dock subcommittee could not approve this. Mr. Sirous replied that the length variance was to get the 26” depth of water at MLW and he felt this was the minimum variance necessary. Mr. Sahagian asked what is lateral access provided. Mr. Sirois replied there is 9’ of overhead clearance. Mr. Zarrella, seconded by Mr. Ricci moved approval of the application with a 40’ length variance. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

2005-03-022 TOWN OF NEW SHOREHAM – Install eight (8) tie-off pilings along west dock, inner basin, to assist in boat docking. Located at Plat 6, lot 158A; Water Street, New Shoreham, RI.

The applicant was not present. Chair Tikoian continued the application.

8. Category “A” List

There were none held.

Mr. Sahagian asked if there any meetings scheduled on the Champlins application. Vice Chair Lemont replied yes -- there would be hearings held on May 18th at 6:00 p.m. and May 31st at 7:00 p.m.

There being no further business before the council the meeting, the council adjourned at 8:34 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Grover Fugate

Executive Director CRMC

Reported by Lori A. Field

CALENDAR INDEX