Skip to ContentSitemap

YouTubeFacebookTwittereNewsletter SignUp

CRMC Logo

RI Coastal Resources Management Council

...to preserve, protect, develop, and restore coastal resources for all Rhode Islanders

Planning and Procedures Subcommittee

In accordance with notice to members of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council’s Planning and Procedures subcommittee, a meeting of the subcommittee was held on Wednesday, Aug. 17, 2005 at 5 p.m. at the office of Piccerelli Gilstein & Co., 144 Westminster St., Providence, RI.

MINUTES

MEMBERS PRESENT
Michael Tikoian, Chairman
Paul E. Lemont, Vice Chair
W. Michael Sullivan, DEM Director

STAFF PRESENT
Grover Fugate, CRMC Executive Director
Laura Ricketson, CRMC Public Educator and Information Coordinator
Brian Goldman, Legal Counsel

Call to order.  Mr. Tikoian called the meeting to order at 5:15 p.m.

Mr. Tikoian opened the meeting with a brief statement of the subcommittee’s function and purpose.  The Planning and Procedures subcommittee meeting is an open public meeting; it is not a public hearing.  Therefore, discussion is available to the Council members themselves, and to all else at the allowance of the Chairman.  Mr. Tikoian further explained that the subcommittee is the program and policy development arm of the Council, and that any programmatic decisions made by this group must ultimately be approved by the full Council in accordance with all proper procedures.

Item 2. The subcommittee held approval of the minutes from the previous meeting.

Item 3.  N/A

Item 4.A. RICRMP/Management Procedures Revisions

Management Procedures

A. Section 5.1 (9) – applications with on-going enforcement activity – B. Goldman explained that this proposed revision speaks to violations on a property that are subsequently the subject of application reviews.  Currently, the Council holds processing of an application when there is a violation on the property. To make this policy clearer, B. Goldman suggested the subcommittee add cited for a instead of the present wording of “Assents for activities on properties found to be in violation of the program…”

A motion to approve the change was made by M. Sullivan and seconded by Mr. Tikoian. M. Discussion ensued where Director Sullivan asked if the Council even wanted to accept an application with a violation, and suggested that the word “assents” be replaced by “applications.” The motion was not amended.  The vote to approve the original motion was unanimous.

Redbook/SAMPs

Item 4.B. Section 100.4 Freshwater Wetlands in the Vicinity of the Coast – Mr. Tikoian reiterated that these are DEM’s freshwater wetland regulations. Section B, (Definitions) Sections 1 a, b and c and Section 2 were copied verbatim from DEM. Section 3, which defines a tributary and tributary wetland, is new.

As proposed, the language reads: Tributary wetlands are freshwater wetlands that are connected via a watercourse to a coastal wetland and/or tidal waters. A tributary is any flowing body of water or watercourse which provides intermittent or perennial flow to tidal waters, coastal ponds, coastal wetlands or other down-gradient watercourses which eventually or immediately discharge to tidal waters, coastal ponds or coastal wetlands.

Section C (Findings) explains the functions and values of freshwater wetlands as including: wildlife and wildlife habitat; recreation and aesthetics; flood protection; surface water and groundwater; and water quality.

G. Fugate explained that the CRMC staff tried to beef up the existing regulations, and that the theory was to elevate the actual freshwater wetland and those tributaries to that of coastal wetlands. It gives the CRMC the ability to at least make a nuisance argument.

A New Policies section was added: It is the policy of the Council to prohibit the alteration, filling, removing or grading of any tributary or tributary wetland associated with a coastal wetland or open water complex. In all cases precise boundaries of these freshwater wetland complexes shall be determined through a field inspection when proposals that could impact these features are being considered.

R. Chateauneuf expressed concerns with all of the new Section F Prohibitions, which lists cases where the CRMC might permit filling, removing or grading of a freshwater wetland. The DEM’s experience is that it’s very difficult to mitigate small wetlands on small lots. They’re difficult to restore and might eat into a buffer, he said. His suggestion was for the CRMC to allow other forms of mitigation to provide options, such as increasing a buffer.

G. Fugate acknowledged that mitigation or restoration is not as good as nature, but said the point is to require mitigation on a replacement ratio of 2:1.

After discussion, the P&P subcommittee made the following changes to the proposed revisions:

B.1 – Reword sentence to add “Incorporated herein by reference is Rule 5.40 of the…”

B.2 – Reword sentence to add “Coastal wetlands as defined in RICRMP Section 210.3 are incorporated herein by reference.”

C.1 Reword sentence to add “Incorporating herein by reference Rule 10.02.B of the…”

F.1 – substitute “circumstances” for “exceptions.”

F.1.b.i – change mitigation ratio from 1 to 1.5 to 1 to 2.

F.1.b.ii – Reword sentence to: The wetland that is replaced shall be consistent with that which was filled.

F.1.b.iii – Change to: The mitigation, when feasible, shall take place on-site and/or in an area which is hydrologically connected to the impacted wetland. When not feasible, the Council will consider other viable alternatives, including increased mitigation ratios.

F.2- The subcommittee suggested the DEM discuss this matter with Dave Reis of CRMC for any clarification.

F.3 – Isolated freshwater wetlands are exempt from this prohibition. DELETED

Motion to approve, with changes, made by P. Lemon, and seconded by M. Sullivan.  All voted to approve.   Mr. Tikoian thanked the work of the CRMC staff and input from DEM, adding that this shows that the CRMC can respond to its own issues quickly.

Item 4.C. Section 210.1: Coastal Beaches; and Section 210.2: Barrier Islands and Spits – G. Fugate explained that changes have been suggested for several months because staff suggested there are fewer coastal beaches under the current definition. Changes included adding …but may also include a vegetative beach berm.

Regarding the Barrier Island and Spits, G. Fugate said staff has tried to apply this section to barrier islands and spits that do not have dunes associated with them.  Staff suggested adding new sections: In some cases barrier islands and spits do not have dunes associated with them. For the purposed of measuring setbacks, the feature shall be the coastal beach.” A new prohibition section states, “All residential construction shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet. Residential construction is prohibited in the setback zone. A special exception shall be required for relief from the 50 foot setback requirement on barriers unless the activity proposed is a beach facility or walkover structure, in which case a variance from the setback provisions shall be required. A variance shall be required for relief from the setback requirement on barriers for the area that lies between the 50 foot minimum setback and any greater setback based on the annual erosion rate. No new Individual Sewage Disposal Systems shall be constructed within the 50 foot setback area (see Section 300.6A.2 for definition of new ISDS). Walkover structures may be permitted over the dunes in order to gain access to the beach.

Motion to approve was made by P. Lemont; seconded by M. Sullivan. All voted in favor.

Item 4.D. Salt Ponds Region & Narrow River SAMPs – affordable housing – G. Fugate explained that these revisions address applications for affordable housing developments where such applications are considered to be “in system” and therefore under the previous regulations.  Given recent housing appeals decisions on what constitutes an application being active, applications may be considered consistent with the existing SAMPs, and that if brought before the Council, may be subject to the regulations that existed at the time of application submittal. Two versions of Sections 920.1.A.2 and 920.1.B.2 Policies and Regulations were provided to the P&P subcommittee for discussion.

M. Sullivan voiced concerns over wording and percent completion on affordable housing plans submitted before the Dec. 14, 2004 deadline; P. Lemont said city and town procedures for these applications not his concern. M. Sullivan said he’d like the language simplified.

M. Sullivan requested that the first references to “local” in the first version be removed in items (j) and (k). Motion to approve the first version, with those changes made by P. Lemont; seconded by M. Sullivan. All voted in favor.

Item 5. A. Wetland Walkover Structures – Not discussed.

Item 6.New Business – Mr. Tikoian announced that, as the CRMC chairman, he plans to send a letter to Virginia Lee, Assistant Director and U.S. Program Manager of the Rhode Island Sea Grant/URI Coastal Resources Center, requesting that both groups design a training program for the CRMC Council and staff. The letter is included below.

Dear Virginia:

            On behalf on the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC), I am requesting that the Rhode Island Sea Grant/URI Coastal Resources Center conduct an assessment of both council and staff training needs. Based on this assessment, your organization develop and provide a training program to CRMC board members and staff to build their capacity and expertise as coastal decision makers.

            The council will review its federal and state funding sources to make funds available to URI Coastal Resources Center to conduct this training.

            Based on your international and domestic training work the CRMC has determined that Rhode Island Sea Grant/URI coastal Resources Center is the organization best suited for this work. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

RICRMC

Michael M. Tikoian, Chairman

Mr. Tikoian added that in a time of increased corporate governance, employee training is standard practice, and that it’s paramount that the CRMC start this process as soon as possible. M. Sullivan and P. Lemont applauded Mr. Tikoian for taking this action.

Item 7. Staff Reports

A. Metro Bay SAMP – G. Fugate reported that the buffer policy is almost finished and almost ready to be sent out to the user groups. Most developers are against the 150-175 foot buffer because of the value of the waterfront parcels, but the CRMC will keep the buffer intact but provide different means to meet the requirement. G. Fugate said he hopes to bring the finished policy to P&P in late October, early November.

Flood construction is a major issue, G. Fugate said. Many developers eyeing the reclaimed land from 195 aren’t aware of this.

The SAMP will assess the need to also have to revise the Type 6 (industrial) water in the Metro Bay area, which prohibits any development that conflict with that use.  Two rowing clubs are also concerned with marina development. The SAMP will need to be creative, G. Fugate said.

Other Business: P. Lemont expressed his desire for the Council to tackle more complex issues than approving a dock for a resident; that the CRMC is going to play a major role in the development of the watershed, and that the Council isn’t addressing this bigger picture during meetings.

Mr. Tikoian agreed that the Council spends a lot of time and energy approving assents during its meetings, instead of looking at SAMPS and policies more. M. Sullivan agreed and suggested a consent agenda for applications with no objections prior to meetings. Any applications with objectors would be taken off the consent agenda and heard at the next meeting. Mr. Tikoian requested that Jeff Willis, CRMC Deputy Director, draw up language with P. Lemont, and use Senate rules for guidance, per B. Goldman.

ADJOURN. M. Sullivan moved to adjourn at 6:40 p.m. It was seconded by P. Lemont, and all voted in favor.

Respectfully submitted August 30, 2005 by

Laura Ricketson

Public Educator and Information Coordinator

CALENDAR INDEX

Stedman Government Center
Suite 116, 4808 Tower Hill Road, Wakefield, RI 02879-1900
Voice 401-783-3370 • Fax 401-783-2069 • E-Mail cstaff1@crmc.ri.gov

RI SealRI.gov
An Official Rhode Island State Website