In accordance with notice to members of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council, a meeting was held on June 28, 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
Neill Gray
Joe Shekarchi
Joe Paolino
Bob Ballou

STAFF PRESENT

Grover Fugate, CRMC Executive Director
Dave Reis, CRMC Environmental Scientist
Dan Goulet, CRMC Dredge Coordinator
Brian Goldman, Legal Counsel
John Longo, Deputy 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. Shekarchi seconded by Mr. Zarrella moved approval of the June 14, 2005 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 they had the 18th meeting on the Champlin’s application in South Kingston and tomorrow they will hold the 19th meeting. Vice Chair Lemont stated that they will hold two meetings in July.

Vice Chair Lemont also announced that the Rights-of-Way subcommittee had met and discussed the Y-10 right-of-way in the Town of Middletown. Vice Chair Lemont stated that it was the recommendation of the subcommittee that the petitioners request to move the right-of-way 65 feet be denied and they would be reporting back to the council at the next full council meeting.

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

5. CONTINUANCES:

2005-03-097 TOWN OF BARRINGTON – A transient boat dock adjacent to the existing public boat ramp located at the former Barrington Police Station property. The proposed structure is to extend approximately 46 feet seaward of the cited Mean Low Water mark. Located at Plat 25, Lot 3; 95 Country Road, Barrington, RI.

The applicant was not present. Chair Tikoian stated that he had received a fax for a continuance on this application yesterday by the Town of Barrington. Chair Tikoian said he is in contact with the Town Manager and once he has another conversation with him, the application would be scheduled. Chair Tikoian continued the application at the Town’s request.

6. APPLICATIONS REQUESTING EXTENSION OF CRMC APPROVED ASSENT BEFORE THE FULL COUNCIL FOR DECISION:

A2001-02-023 ROBERT AND MARGARET ROTANZ – Dwelling and ISDS. Located at Plat 96-1, Lot 110; 63 Green Hill Ocean Drive, South Kingstown, RI.

Robert Rotanz, the applicant was present. Mr. Fugate gave council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Fugate noted that the applicant was seeking an extension to the assent. Mr. Fugate said he granted a one-year administrative assent extension and this was the applicant’s first full council extension request. Chair Tikoian asked if he recommended approval of the extension request. Mr. Fugate replied yes. Mr. Zarrella, seconded by Mr. Coia moved approval of a one-year extension of the assent. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

M2001-05-008 DANIEL KIDDY – Seawall maintenance. Located at Plat 162, Lot 33; Avondale Road, Westerly, RI.

Daniel Kiddy, the applicant was present. Mr. Fugate gave council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Fugate noted this was the same as the previous application that the applicant was seeking an extension to the assent. Mr. Fugate said he granted a one-year administrative assent extension and this was the applicant’s first full council extension request. Mr. Fugate stated that no work had been conducted under the application and staff recommended approval. Mr. Zarrella, seconded by Mr. Paolino moved approval of a one-year extension of the assent. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

A2001-03-019 DOLORES CUSSON – Demolition of existing structure and rebuilding dwelling. Located at Plat 2, Lot 46; 93 Surfside Avenue, Charlestown, RI.

Chair Tikoian reused himself.
Vice Chair Lemont presided over the application.
Joseph DeAngelis, attorney for the applicant was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Fugate gave council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Fugate noted this application was similar to the two previous applications that the applicant was seeking an extension to the assent. Mr. Fugate said he granted a one-year administrative assent extension and this was the applicant’s first full council extension request. Mr. Fugate stated that no work had been conducted in the assent at this time. Mr. Zarrella, seconded by Mr. Coia moved approval of a one-year extension of the assent. 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:

2003-12-061 MARION C. FILIPPI -- Construct and maintain a marina facility consisting of 305 linear feet of floating dockage (8 boat slips), dredge 2,600 cubic yards of sediment to be used as beach nourishment at “Ballards Beach”, and construct steel bulkhead (150 LF, total). Located in Old Harbor, Block Island Sound; plat 6, lot 159; Ballards Wharf, Water Street, New Shoreham, 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, Kelly Sheridan, attorney for the objectors, Interstate Navigation Company, owner of the pier on Block Island, as well as the Block Island Ferry Services, LLC that runs the high-speed ferry service from New London to Block Island. Michael McElroy, attorney for the Interstate Navigation Company, d/b/a the Block Island Ferry, an objector. Attorney Longo polled council members on the reading of the transcript and briefs:

Mr. Shekarchi Yes Mr. Gray Yes
Mr. Sahagian Yes Mr. Zarrella Yes
Mr. Coia Yes Vice Chair Lemont Yes
Mr. Ballou Yes

7 Affirmative 0 Negative 0 Absentation

Vice Chair Lemont explained the ground rules that were established that Mr. DeAngelis would have 10 minutes followed by five minutes each from Mr. Sheridan and Mr. McElroy for closing arguments. Mr. DeAngelis thanked the council for their time and consideration on the application. Mr. DeAngelis explained that the applicant is seeking an assent to construct a dock approximately 110’ in length along the westerly side of the Army Corps of Engineer’s jetty in the Inner Harbor of Old Harbor Block Island. Mr. DeAngelis stated that this is type 5 waters and the area is intended for commercial and recreational use. Mr. DeAngelis stated that at 110’ this dock was no longer than most residential boating facilities. Mr. DeAngelis said the application was originally filed 15 months ago and was based on comments and recommendations by RI DEM, the Army Corps of Engineers and other federal agencies and Dan Goulet of CRMC. Mr. DeAngelis noted that CRMC staff had no objection to the application. Mr. DeAngelis said the application drew objection from their neighbors to the west, Interstate Nav and Interstate Navigation because of navigational concerns, security issues, the stability of the jetty, setback from the anchorage line, parking for patrons and concerns for third-party damage from the jet wash to their boats. Mr. DeAngelis said the issue of the riparian lines had been raised and the objectors felt it was 90 degrees from the federal anchorage line but the CRMC staff and their engineer felt it was in a different location. Mr. DeAngelis said the objection was not a concern with navigation or with the affect it will have on the jetty or an objection based on the safety of patrons in this area. He said last year their neighbors instituted a new high-speed ferry service with a boat called the “Jessica W” which is 55 feet in width. Mr. DeAngelis stated that all parties, the Filippi Family and the Wronowski family determined the riparian lines when the ferry was put in and they determined that the riparian line was near the three dolphin piles that had been historically established. Mr. DeAngelis stated that their neighbors to the west had instituted a new ferry service and are looking to institute another ferry service using their rights to the water. Mr. DeAngelis felt the applicant has a right to build a dock. Mr. DeAngelis felt the jetty issued raised by Mr. McElroy had been addressed at the preliminary hearing by Mr. Fugate and Mr. Goldman and it was determined that the jetty was an Army Corps issue not a CRMC issue. Mr. DeAngelis talked about the videos submitted to show how the “Jessica W” navigated in Old Harbor. Mr. DeAngelis noted that the objectors’ video was made in January and it was not a regular run of the “Jessica W”. Mr. DeAngelis stated that the applicant’s video showed an actual landing of the “Jessica W” the week after Labor Day.

Mr. Sheridan stated that their principle concern was safety. Mr. Sheridan felt the council was required to consider what is there now and this new activity. He said it was the value of service provided to the island versus a six-boat marina. Mr. Sheridan stated that they are providing a lifeline service to an island versus a six boat recreational marina. Mr. Sheridan felt the facility was too close to their ferry and the marina will effect navigation of the ferry. Mr. Sheridan said there was no way to control ingress and egress of recreational boats in this area. Mr. Sheridan stated that they were concerned with the safety of passengers on the ferry. Mr. Sheridan addressed their objection that no local approval had been requested or an application filed by the applicant for local approval been made. Mr. Sheridan felt this sets a dangerous precedent and the applicant should get local approval first. Mr. Sheridan felt the application did not meet the requirements for the three variances sought. Mr. Sheridan also felt the application did not meet the federal setback requirements. Mr. Sheridan stated that the dock could be cut back 25 feet and the applicant would only lose two boats at the end of the dock. Mr. Sheridan asked the council to limit the size of the six boats to 26 feet each.

Mr. McElroy explained that they had three objections: it was unsafe to the ferry, the marina, the jetty and the people who use them. Mr. McElroy said the piling would be 20’ away from the proposed dolphin. Mr. McElroy felt this would effect navigation and would put lives at risk to justify the small benefit of a small marina. Mr. McElroy felt this would affect the security buffer area that was part of the homeland security plan. Mr. McElroy did not feel the applicant met the variance criteria and should loose two slips. Mr. McElroy said no local approval was received and felt local approval was necessary. Mr. McElroy felt this was a safety issue for the public and was a serious issue and needed to be taken into consideration.

Vice Chair Lemont thanked everyone. Mr. Sahagian had a question on local approval and whether the application was properly before the council. Mr. Goldman replied yes the application was properly before the council. Mr. Goldman stated that he spoke with Mr. Fugate and the activity is below the MHW mark and the town took an ambivalent position as to whether local approval was needed. Mr. Goldman stated that the application was properly before the council. Mr. Sahagian wanted to make sure the application was properly before the council. Mr. Gray had a question on the variances whether two or three variances were needed – for the parking, the federal channel setback and the dredging issue variance. Mr. Fugate replied that there was a question on whether the dredging has to take place within the marina perimeter and there was no standard that said it has to be done within the marina perimeter. Mr. Gray stated that under Section 304.E.1.d.f it stated that the dredging falls under the marina perimeter limit and it was his understanding that if the line goes around the structures so that a facility cannot expand its physical structures they cannot do this without coming back before the council. Mr. Fugate replied correct. Mr. Gray said the dredging project from the marina falls within their riparian area that may be different from the marina perimeter. Mr. Gray asked what the variance was to the dredging issue. Mr. Fugate responded that there was nothing in the program for a dredging variance requirement. Mr. Gray said there were only two variances being sought for the parking and the setback from the federal channel. Vice Chair Lemont replied yes. Mr. Ballou asked about the setback issue of the property line and the riparian line. Mr. Goldman explained that the standard residential dock setback from the riparian line is 25 feet but that this was not so when it comes to marinas and no variance comes into play. Mr. Zarrella stated that the application was for an 8-slip marina not for a high-speed ferryboat and was for recreational vessels only. Vice Chair Lemont replied correct. Mr. Sahagian addressed the parking variance and felt the applicant had addressed this adequately as this would be a transient marina and people do not drive to Block Island. Mr. Gray said he was not sure that the full six slips were necessary even if it was a transient facility because it would generate traffic in the area. Mr. Gray felt there was a need for some parking and not a 100% variance. Mr. Gray said he would support a much-reduced variance on the parking. Mr. Ballou asked where he saw parking on the land. Mr. Gray said there is an area there now that can be used as designated parking and offsite arrangements for parking can be provided with 1-2 spaces as a minimum for parking. Mr. Zarrella said he did not see any reason why the applicant could not build a marina. Mr. Zarrella stated that the concerns raised were for safety and parking. Mr. Zarrella stated that there was some testimony regarding bathrooms and if this was approved they could use the bathrooms at Ballards and not use town facilities. Mr. Zarrella stated that the applicant said they would put a pumpout in and this would be the only pumpout in Old Harbor and thought it would be a big help. Mr. Zarrella said as far as the town permits, the only permit they might need from the town would be to escavate. Mr. Zarrella felt the wall was an Army Corps issue. He said they could reduce the length of the first two slips and limit the size of the boat as this was a seasonal marina for recreational boats. Mr. Zarrella said a boat could take off 10 minutes before or after the landing of the ferry so there would be no boats allowed to come in and out during this time. Mr. Zarrella felt the eight-slip marina should be allowed. Vice Chair Lemont felt that not being allowed to leave 10 minute prior to the arrival or departure of the ferry was probably unenforceable. Mr. Sahagian agreed with both Mr. Zarrella and Mr. Gray that there should be postings for the bathroom and a 10-minute leaving and coming into the dock when the ferry is in use. Mr. Sahagian felt the parking spaces should be identified and worked out. Mr. Gray wanted it stated that this was a transient dock with one or two spaces designated for parking. Mr. Gray felt the 10-minute rule was unenforceable. Mr. Zarrella felt it was enforceable and could be enforced when they check in and out of the dock. Mr. Zarrella said let the enforcement be between the harbormaster, the Fillipi’s and Interstate. He said he was sure it could be worked out Block Island is a small island and everybody works things out sooner or later. Mr. Gray addressed the safety issue raised and not allowing a dock facility. Mr. Gray had a problem with allowing one facility to use the property and not allowing another to use the area. Mr. Gray said they might have to have a safety vessel there to guide the ferry. Mr. Gray felt there are some other means that can be taken by the company to bring the safety level higher than where it is today. Mr. Gray said they dealt with the federal setback requirements in Newport harbor and it goes off the Army Corps regulations on a 3 to 1 recommendation but it was not a requirement. Mr. Gray stated that the Army Corps recommended a 20’ setback and felt it would be a hardship for the applicant to have a 45’ setback because of the conditions that exist already in this area and the Army Corps response. Mr. Ballou asked if the marina would encroach upon an area needed by the ferry to safely navigate and he felt it would impact navigation. Mr. Ballou felt the jetty issue was not a navigational concern. Mr. Ballou said they need to determine how close is too close and how far away was sufficient. Mr. Ballou said right now there is 56 feet from the ferry to the jetty. Mr. Ballou stated that if the variance was not granted the marina would have to pulled back to provide more room. Mr. Ballou felt there could be a reasonable compromise. Mr. Ballou said the marina was an appropriate proposal but they need to minimize the impact on the ferry practice. Mr. Ballou suggested limiting all the boats on the marina not just the two end boats to 26’ or 30’ maximum length but also for the other six slips. He felt the council should limit the size of all vessels at the marina dock. Mr. Reis requested guidance from the council on preparing the stipulations and for stipulations on the transient use of the dock. Vice Chair Lemont noted that they had set a 3-day limit. Mr. Gray said no limit for transient time was set. Mr. Gray suggested a transient time of no longer than a week and they had to be off the dock for a minimum of five days before they could come back. Vice Chair Lemont asked who was going to monitor this. Mr. Gray said that was the problem. Mr. Gray did not see a reason this needs to be a transient dock other than the parking issue. Mr. Zarrella said let the applicant put who they want on the dock. Vice Chair Lemont replied the council had a discussion on this because the applicant requested a transient marina. Mr. Zarrella said as far as the parking issue there are 50 parking spaces at the sewer plant and the applicant can rent parking spaces for the summer. Mr. Zarrella noted that the applicant could buy two parking spots and eliminate the transient use of the dock. Vice Chair Lemont asked staff if they had any other issues beside the stipulations. Mr. Reis stated that they needed to determine whether or not rafting would be allowed. Mr. Sahagian felt they should not put as a transient dock and if the applicant wants to keep people there for longer periods of time he should be allowed to. Mr. Sahagian said the parking could be mandated to two parking spaces for parking on the parcel. Mr. Sahagian, seconded by Mr. Coia moved approval of the application with the stipulation from the Army Corps, a stipulation that the first two slips have a requirement of a maximum length of 26’ boats and any staff stipulations. Mr. Sahagian noted that the motion included the federal channel setback and the parking variances requested. Mr. Ballou was concerned with not limiting the length of the boats on the other six slips and felt any vessel over 30’ could impact navigational safety. Mr. Sahagian said it was a concern but felt people using the marina should understand what size vessel can be accommodated on the dock and be able to maneuver their vessel. Mr. Sahagian did not feel they should limit the size of the boats on the dock. Mr. Zarrella stated that an average boat in this area is bigger than 30’ and he sees 36-38’ boats and not 24-26’ boats. Vice Chair Lemont stated that there would be no rafting allowed. Mr. Gray felt there should not be 100% variance on the parking. Vice Chair Lemont called for a roll call vote on the motion:

On the motion for approval.

Mr. Shekarchi Yes Mr. Gray Yes
Mr. Sahagian Yes Mr. Zarrella Yes
Mr. Coia Yes Vice Chair Lemont Yes
Mr. Ballou Yes

7 Affirmative 0 Negative 0 Absentation

Chair Tikoian called for a recess at 7:05 p.m. The Meeting was called back to order at 7:11 p.m. Mr. Shekarchi left the meeting at 7:12 p.m.

 

2004-08-029 ARMAND DELUISE – Construct a 36’ x 25’ single family dwelling with deck, permeable driveway and denitrifying ISDS. Located at Plat 334, Lots 252, 253; Spadina Avenue, Warwick, RI.

Susan Chiariello, attorney for the applicant was present on behalf of the applicant. Scott Rabideau, the applicant’s wetland biologist and Mike Raimondi, the applicant’s land surveyor were also present on behalf of the applicant. Thomas Wilson, Stephen Votta, Jan Reitsma and William Derig of Mill Cove Conservancy, the objectors were present. Mr. Reis gave council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Reis stated that the application was to construct a three-bedroom single-family dwelling with a deck, denitrification system and permeable driveway. Mr. Reis stated that the application requires a 39 percent variance to the 75-foot buffer requirement and a 10-foot variance to the proposed setback. Mr. Reis said staff has no objection to the application. Ms. Chiariello stated the applicant is proposing to build a 36’ x 25’ single-family residential dwelling. Ms. Chiariello said the original plans for the house were 50’ x 40’ and that they had worked with CRMC staff and have reduced the size of the house according to their recommendation. Ms. Chiariello noted that the applicant had reviewed the staff recommendation for approval and the stipulations and agreed to them. Ms. Chiariello stated that the applicant planned to occupy the property with his family. She noted that Warwick zoning was not needed and they had a letter from the Warwick building inspector in the file. She said 25 neighbors had signed a petition in favor of the application and she submitted this as part of the record.

OBJECTORS
Mr. Wilson, Chair of the Mill Cove Conservancy, stated that they were opposed to this application and felt they needed to preserve the marsh. Mr. Wilson felt if the application was granted it would do damage to the Bucky Brook watershed. Mr. Wilson felt that the regulations stated that there would be no building in this area as it was an environmentally sensitive area. Mr. Wilson stated that the property is on the west side of the marsh and there has been severe damage to the marsh on the east side. Mr. Wilson felt that allowing a building there where there has not been any building in the marsh for over 60 years would be inconsistent with CRMC’s purpose. Mr. Derig submitted a picture which was a satellite image of the Shawmut marsh area as an exhibit. Mr. Derig noted that a grant application was made last fall for $100,000 and the grant has been approved by DEM and the City of Warwick had matched the funds. Mr. Derig stated that they have $200,000 available to acquire land on this marsh for preservation. Mr. Derig wanted to preserve the marsh and requested that the council deny the application. Mr. Reitsma, a member of the board, stated that their organization was to protect the coastal areas in Mill Cove and Conimicut Cove and protect the rights of the people in the area. Mr. Reitsma stated that the staff biologist report and the applicant’s biologist report do not recognize the resource value of this area. Mr. Reitsma noted that CRMC stated that this was a good area for habitat restoration. Mr. Reitsma said the City of Warwick and the Conservancy were working together to preserve this area. Mr. Reitsma said this area was a marsh area with the lower part being a coastal wetland area. Mr. Reitsma said the lower area was focused on for habitat restoration which CRMC has reviewed. Chair Tikoian noted that CRMC’s review of the habitat restoration was actually looking at the upper portion of the marsh. Mr. Wilson noted that the upper area on the map is the main area for habitat restoration. Mr. Reitsma stated that the applicant’s biologist report stated that this was a very densely developed area and he felt it was very much a functioning wetland area. Mr. Reitsma felt the applicant and the council need to work on this as the application did not meet the variance requirements necessary and were not minimum relief necessary. Mr. Reitsma felt more information was needed. Mr. Reitsma felt this would be a difficult decision for the council to make. He said the applicant’s property is eligible for acquisition to preserve the marsh area. Mr. Reitsma stated that they objected to the application because they felt it would be an adverse impact to the area on the scenic value and on the water quality. Mr. Reitsma addressed the buffer zone issue and felt it was not only up to the council to preserve and protect buffers but also to restore where possible coastal buffer zones. Mr. Reitsma felt you need to restore buffers not decrease them. Mr. Reitsma felt the buffers should remain undisturbed and a 50’ buffer was not adequate. Mr. Reitsma stated that the conservation area requires as much of this land as possible to be preserved in order to protect and restore the conservation area. Mr. Reitsma said the runoff issue needs to be addressed and determine what the cumulative impact would be as this would set a precedent in this area. Mr. Reitsma stated that coastal wetlands need to be protected and preserved. Mr. Reitsma felt the application did not meet the CRMC requirements for a variance and that the project would have a significant impact to the area. Mr. Reitsma said the hardship issue was not in effect. Mr. Votta addressed the riparian buffer zone areas. Mr. Votta stated that it is essential to consider the value of the development and the ecosystem of the Shawmut marsh. Mr. Votta said water is important and felt this development would lead to an irreversible effect and change over time. Mr. Votta opposed land use and structures in the marsh. Mr. Votta said this area was part of a restoration project. Mr. Wilson felt you should not be allowed to build a house in a marsh area where there are no houses. Mr. Wilson stated that restoration funds had been raised to protect the area and they will not get any more funds if the area is built on. Mr. Wilson said no zoning approval was needed because the lot was 20,000 s.f. and they have meet the 20’ setback requirement. Chair Tikoian asked if they filed anything with the City of Warwick relative to their claim that the city was in error and that the city did not do what is was suppose to do. They did not. Chair Tikoian asked what the potential use conflicts were if the house was built. Mr. Reitsma stated that it would affect the habitat restoration plan in this area. Chair Tikoian stated that there was a letter from the Warwick building official in the file. Ms. Chiariello addressed the Warwick zoning ordinance issue and Section 405.4 allowed residential use of nonconforming lots and a dwelling may be built on lots containing 7,000 s.f. or more and have minimum frontage. Mr. Rabideau explained in his professional opinion how the application meets the CRMC program. Mr. Rabideau stated that the applicant was requesting 49% relief on the buffer zone. Mr. Rabideau said CRMC staff and he concurred that the project had to be minimized and designed to protect the functions and values of the coastal marsh. Mr. Rabideau stated there would be a mitigation plan of the marsh area. Mr. Rabideau said there was 38’ separation from the marsh and the coastal buffer zone marker. Mr. Rabideau felt this would protect the marsh area. Mr. Rabideau felt the application was consistent with the CRMC plan. Mr. Sahagian asked if he prepared the report in the package and wanted to now who signed it. Mr. Rabideau said he prepared the report. Mr. Zarrella asked if they had an approved ISDS. Mr. Rabideau replied yes. Andrew Mike Raimondi, the applicant’s land surveyor testified that he is a licensed land surveyor in Rhode Island. Ms. Chiariello submitted his qualifications to the council as an exhibit. Mr. Zarrella, seconded by Mr. Sahagian moved to accept Mr. Raimondi as an expert land surveyor. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote. Mr. Raimondi explained that the septic system was sited as far away from the coastal feature as possible. Mr. Raimondi stated that the septic system was in the front yard and they were using the smallest system they can with a sand filter denitrification system. Mr. Raimondi said they cannot move the septic system any closer to the road. Chair Tikoian asked when they got DEM approval for the septic system. Mr. Raimondi replied the received approval on 12/2/03 and it would expire on 12/2/08. Mr. Zarrella asked if the system was designed for a 2, 3 or 4 bedroom. Mr. Raimondi replied a 3-bedroom design. Mr. Sahagian had a question on the side yard setbacks. Mr. Raimondi replied that a 30’ setback was required for a 40,000-s.f. lot and side yards are reduced for substandard lots. Mr. Sahagian said even if the applicant did not seek a variance for a substandard lot they have setback relief. Chair Tikoian asked if Ms. Chiariello had seen the letter from Save the Bay. Ms. Chiariello replied yes. Mr. Ballou asked how long the applicant has owned the property. Ms. Chiariello replied the applicant has owned the land for less than one year. Mr. Ballou asked how much he paid for the property. Ms. Chiariello replied she did not know. Chair Tikoian noted that the purchase price of property was not relevant to the council’s decision. Mr. Ballou felt it was relevant and what the applicant’s investment back expectation is. Mr. Goldman explained that the Supreme Court ruled that the purchase price was not relevant to CRMC review and what the investment back expectations are were not relevant inquiries for the council to look at. Mr. Reis said staff did not take this recommendation lightly. Mr. Reis noted that there were two preliminary determinations on this and they have known about the project for a couple of years. Mr. Reis said they were concerned with sewers in this area and other lots in this area being made available to sewers. He said they felt trying to preempt the availability of sewers in this area would help secure the protection of this marsh. Mr. Reis stated that it was very unlikely other projects on the east side of this lot could meet the development requirements. Mr. Reis said staff was concerned with this area and it was a very valuable marsh and there was habitat restoration to the north for marsh. Mr. Reis said this was probably the only lot bordering this marsh and the road, which could be built on. Mr. Reis noted that the variance was less than 50 percent. Mr. Reis said staff felt the impact was not significant and the application should not be denied. Chair Tikoian asked if they also reviewed this with respect to the new SAMP plan that was adopted in this area. Mr. Reis replied no it was submitted before the SAMP plan. Mr. Fugate stated that this area was outside the SAMP plan. Mr. Gray said the construction setback was normally 25 feet and this was only 15 feet. Mr. Reis replied yes – the applicant gets a smaller backyard and they get a bigger buffer. Mr. Reis noted that there were stipulations that the dwelling size could not be increased and the buffer cannot be changed. Vice Chair Lemont asked what the elevation of the slab was. Mr. Reis replied 7 feet. Vice Chair Lemont asked what the 100-year flood plan called for in this area. Mr. Reis replied the elevation is at 19 feet from the plan for the first floor and the house was on pilings.

Edward Carpenter stated that he was in favor of the application. Mr. Zarrella had a question of Mr. Wilson and asked what the proper name of their group was. Mr. Wilson replied the Mill Cove Conservancy. Mr. Zarrella asked if they received state and federal funding for group. Mr. Wilson replied no they received private donations. Mr. Zarrella asked if they offered to purchase this property. Mr. Wilson replied no. Mr. Zarrella asked if they met with the city for grant money to buy this property. Mr. Wilson replied yes. Mr. Reitsma said the conservancy was not trying to stop neighbors from building but to make sure policies and procedures are followed. Mr. Reitsma felt you need to protect a resource area. Ms. Chiariello felt that this was lay testimony and that the applicant had presented expert testimony. Leslie Owen stated that she was opposed to the application because builders of homes never live in the homes they build. Ms. Owen felt the environment needed to be taken care of. Mr. Coia, seconded by Mr. Paolino moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations and the variance. Vice Chair Lemont said he was seeing a trend he did not like stretching to meet the criteria to build. Vice Chair Lemont felt this area was important to upper Narragansett Bay and they need to look at protecting the upper bay and the council was not doing that in this case. Vice Chair Lemont was opposed to the application. Mr. Ballou agreed with Vice Chair Lemont. Mr. Ballou felt this was a Type 1-conservation area and the CRMC standards and policies designated this for protection. Mr. Ballou felt that people should be able to build on their property and do what they want with there property but not in buffer zones of coastal marshes adjacent to Type 1 waterways. Mr. Ballou was opposed to the application. Chair Tikoian was concerned with voting no on an application that staff, which is the most conservative staff ever, had no objections to the application. Chair Tikoian stated that the staff concerns and reports were elaborate and the applicant followed the rules. Chair Tikoian said if council members did not feel the applicant met the variance criteria vote no but if the applicant meets the criteria they need to way their decision on what was presented. Chair Tikoian stated that as a member of the council they need to weigh both sides and weigh the reports submitted. Chair Tikoian noted that the applicant had received approval from DEM for the ISDS. Chair Tikoian felt this was an even playing field. Mr. Ballou noted that DEM’s approval of an ISDS is based on a very narrow perspective whether the site is suitable or can be rendered suitable for the treatment of waste and its not the broad view that the council has responsibility for. The motion carried. Vice Chair Lemont and Mr. Ballou were opposed.

2000--05-053 JOHN & ALICE SANTOS – Modify – an existing CRMC Assent for a residential boating facility to reflect as-built conditions which place the terminus of the facility approximately 7.75 feet south of its approved location. Located at Plat 117, Lot 136; 55 Pleasant Street, North Kingstown, RI.

Mr. Paolino recused himself.
Turner Scott, attorney for the applicant was present on behalf of the applicant. Richard DiSalvo, president of RI Mooring Services was also present on behalf of the applicant. Maureen Hobson and Gregory Madoin, attorneys for the objectors were also present. Mr. Reis gave council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Reis stated that the application was to modify an assent, CRMC Assent A2000-05-53 to reflect the as-built conditions of a residential boating facility located within 25 feet of the abutter’s property line extension. Mr. Reis stated that the project requires a 4.75’ variance to maintain the facility terminus at approximately 20’ from the shared property line extension. Mr. Reis stated that staff had no objection to the application. Mr. Scott passed out a packet to council members as an exhibit. Mr. DiSalvo stated that the dock was built in conformance with CRMC regulations and no variances were needed. Mr. DiSalvo said the dock was built according to the described plans. He said there was a question on the pilings and the floating dock by the applicants’ neighbor. Mr. DiSalvo stated that the neighbor was disputing the location of the piling and felt that the dock was built over the property line. Mr. DiSalvo said when he went out and re-measured the location of the dock he felt the dock was properly built. He said they also did a survey to see if the dock was over the setback lines and it showed the timber pilings in the setback area. Mr. DiSalvo stated that if they moved the dock they would have less water and it would restrict the use of the dock. Mr. DiSalvo explained if they moved 15’ off the setback there would be no effect to maneuver two boats in this area. Mr. Reis noted that in his opening statement he said a 5’ variance was required. Mr. Reis stated that two surveys were done one by the applicant and one by the objectors in the applicants’ survey they need a 5’ variance and in the objector’s survey they need a 9’ variance which was a discrepancy of 4 feet. Mr. Scott stated that it was very difficult to determine the difference in the southerly property line. Mr. DiSalvo stated that they built the dock to go around the rock. Chair Tikoian noted that they built the dock around the rock but the rock was not on the plan. Mr. DiSalvo replied that the rock had been on the original plan. Mr. Madoian asked the applicant when they constructed the dock were they aware of the survey done by Mr. Hall and the applicant. Mr. DiSalvo replied no. Mr. Madoin asked if he was aware when the dock that the dock was built in the wrong location. Mr. DiSalvo replied no. He said he was aware after the construction of the dock that it was built in the wrong location. Mr. Madoin asked if he was aware of the discrepancies of the surveys reported by staff. Mr. DiSalvo replied yes. Chair Tikoian said that two timber pilings and the float were in the setback area. Mr. Reis replied yes. Mr. Reis noted that the rock is correct on Exhibit C submitted by Mr. Scott and it was not in the assented view on page (P10). Chair Tikoian asked where this left the council. Mr. Reis stated that the council needed to determine if a 5’ or 9’ variance was needed. Ms. Hobson noted that the rock was still under the ramp. Chair Tikoian replied yes. Ms. Hobson stated that her client was seeking to address this issue and move the dock because of the rock. Chair Tikoian stated that he was trying to make sure they were looking at the right plans and that the comparisons that they have to look at is Mr. Scott’s Exhibit C and the council Exhibit P-10. Chair Tikoian wanted to make sure that the comments were held to the two comparisons on the two plans. Chair Tikoian noted that in either case we have a variance issue. Ms. Hobson stated that they were also arguing that the dock was not built as shown in the original plan in CRMC’s original decision. Mr. Reis noted that in the original plan they had a 28’ extension setback from the property line and met the plan and that the dock was not as built in the 25’ setback. Bryson Hall, an abutter to the south of the applicant, stated that he did not object to the original application in 2000 as the application had met the CRMC requirements. Mr. Hall stated that he was aware that the applicant was in violation of the assent when half the fixed pier was put in. Mr. Hall stated that he approached Mr. Santos and was informed by him that the dock had been built in compliance with the plan. Mr. Hall stated that the applicant kept building the dock and would not change the direction of the dock. Mr. Hall then contacted CRMC to report the violation and was told they would investigate the matter and get back to him. Mr. Hall stated that he made four reports to CRMC and his mother made two complaints to CRMC. Mr. Hall said CRMC informed him that they did not have a survey and they were not equipped to do a survey. Mr. Hall hired a surveyor to determine the distance from the fixed pier to this property line and was informed that the fixed pier was 20 ½ feet from his property line. Ms. Hobson submitted a survey done by Anthony Associates in 1979 as an exhibit and felt this survey would show a more significant variance would be needed. Chair Tikoian stated that we are all going to argue that there is a variance issue here but they need to determine the size of the variance needed. Chair Tikoian stated that he was not sure the council would be able to make a decision as to whose survey is more accurate unless the council recommends both parties contribute and hire an independent surveyor and to with that survey. Chair Tikoian asked what their objection was to having the dock where it is versus forcing them to move it. Ms. Hobson felt the dock was 16’ away from the objector’s property line and may preclude him from building a dock. Chair Tikoian asked if the objector had looked into building a dock and was told he could not build a dock. Ms. Hobson replied no they relied on CRMC regulations for a 25’ setback from the property line. Mr. Gray noted that an engineer was not on site when a dock is built and they come to the site after the fact. Mr. Gray said one survey said the pier is fine and another survey said the pier is 4.5 feet over the property line. Mr. Gray said maybe they can compromise on one survey versus the other, one survey is Class II and the other is a Class III, which are different quality and levels of surveying. Mr. Gray stated that the applicant can move the floats and pilings over enough to be within the 25’ setback area and no variance would be needed or the council could approve the application as built and move the float and four pilings over everything would be 25’ outside the area. Chair Tikoian felt the only way to clarify this was to have an independent surveyor. Mr. Zarrella asked if they find that a dock is being constructed wrong what happens. Chair Tikoian replied that a C & D is issued and enforcement action taken. Chair Tikoian asked staff if there were any enforcement reports on this. Mr. Reis replied that he had spoken with enforcement staff and could not determine if the dock was built out of compliance. He said they did suggest survey become as they could not tell. Vice Chair Lemont asked how wide his property was. Mr. Hall replied 80 feet. Vice Chair Lemont asked if a dock could be placed without affecting the 25’ area. Mr. Hall replied yes. Vice Chair Lemont noted that the objector could still build a dock and that the applicant’s dock encroaches 4-7 feet over the property line. Ms. Hobson replied by their calculation it was 7 feet. Vice Chair Lemont felt a true mistake had been made but they are still arguing that. Vice Chair Lemont stated that the objector still has the right to build a dock and not infringe on anything but he still wants the dock moved. Mr. Hall stated that he was ignored by everyone early on when approached them and said the dock was being built in the wrong place. Mr. Hall felt the applicant should put the dock where he designed it. Ms. Hobson said they wanted to make sure the dock was done within the rules. Mr. Hall noted that the applicant was not selling his property. Chair Tikoian stated that we can all agree the dock was built in the wrong spot. Ms. Hobson noted that the applicant’s surveyor relied on the nail bonds but in by her client’s surveyor which is 3 feet off the property line. Mr. Scott stated that this was very shallow water and they were only moving a 13’ Boston Whaler in and out not a high-speed ferry and there is a lot of distance to maneuver. Mr. Scott stated that there would be no impact on navigation. He said the dock was build over the line. Mr. Scott agreed with Mr. Gray’s suggestion to move the pilings and the float over and pay for an independent survey. Chair Tikoian asked legal council if the agree with Mr. Gray’s suggestions can they also make a stipulation and file it with the Land Evidence Records that there’s no objection in the event the abutter wants to build a dock. Mr. Goldman replied yes that it can be part of the council’s decision and the assent can be recorded in the Land Evidence Records. Mr. Scott agreed to no objection to Mr. Hall’s dock if it meets the CRMC requirements. Chair Tikoian noted that is would only be a 16’ maximum setback instead of the 25’ setback requirement. Mr. Gray recommended that the fixed pier remain and that the float and pilings be moved to the north at least 10’ over. Mr. Gray felt they needed to get another survey. A compromised could not be reached. Mr. Reis suggested that the application be bumped back to staff to see if they could work out a compromise. Mr. Scott and Ms. Hobson agreed. Vice Chair Lemont, seconded by Mr. Coia moved to remand the application back to staff to work with the applicant and the objector. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

2004-10-111 DONALD MacALLISTER – Construct a residential boating facility to consist of a 4’ x 158’ fixed timber pier with a 4’ x 20’ lower access (terminal) platform. The terminus of the dock will extend to 75-feet beyond mean low water (MLW). Located
at Plat 2, Lot 222; 864 East Shore Road, Jamestown, RI.

Turner Scott, attorney for the applicant was present on behalf of the applicant. Vice Chair Lemont, seconded by Mr. Zarrella moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations. The motion was carried on unanimous voice vote.

2004-09-131 TARAK WEHBE – Construct a residential boating facility consisting of a: 4’ x 160.4’ fixed timber pier with a 4’ x 20’ fixed, lower (terminus) access platform. The dock will extend to 90.8-feet beyond mean low water (MLW) requiring a RICRMP 300.4.E.3.(k) variance. Located at Plat 4, Lot 101; 566 East Shore Road, Jamestown, RI.

Turner Scott, attorney for the applicant was 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 a residential boating facility with and L-section terminus to extend approximately 90.8 feet beyond MLW and requires a 41’ length variance. Mr. Reis stated that the dock is in an eelgrass area and was designed using the Burdick & Short method. Mr. Reis said the dock minus has 5’ at mlw depth. He said staff recommended approval of the application. Mr. Coia, seconded by Mr. Zarrella moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

8. Enforcement Report – May, 2005

There were none held.

9. Category “A” List

There were none held.

Chair Tikoian announced that there would only be one meeting in July, which will be the second meeting of the month..

There being no further business before the council the meeting, the council adjourned
at 9:35 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Grover Fugate

Executive Director CRMC

Reported by Lori A. Field

CALENDAR INDEX