In accordance with notice to members of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council, a meeting was held on August 23, 2005 at 6:00 PM at the Narraganset Bay Commission Boardroom – One Service Road, Providence, RI.

MEMBERS

Mike Tikoian, Chair
Paul Lemont, Vice Chair
Dave Abedon
Jerry Zarrella
Ray Coia
Mike Sullivan
Neill Gray
Joe Shekarchi

STAFF PRESENT

Grover Fugate, CRMC Executive Director
Dave Reis, CRMC Environmental Scientist
Dave Alves, CRMC Aquaculture Coordinator
Brian Goldman, Legal Counsel

1. Chair Tikoian called the meeting to order at 6:00 P.M.

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

Mr. Coia, seconded by Mr. Gray moved approval of the July 26, 2005 minutes. Mr. Sullivan had a question on the minutes regarding a statement by Mr. Fugate regarding the policy and planning subcommittee’s report regarding regulation under Section100-4. Mr. Sullivan noted that no one at DEM had seen the minutes of the policy and planning subcommittee and was hesitant to accept a reference to a meeting which he had not seen the minutes. Chair Tikoian stated that it was his prerogative not to vote on the minutes but explained that the regulation change went out to public notice and the regulation stated that when there is a freshwater assent before CRMC that they have to go to DEM to get their water quality certification first. Mr. Sullivan said he read that but DEM would have substantive comment on this proposed change and wanted to make the council aware of that. Chair Tikoian noted that this proposed change has not come before the full council yet so anyone who wanted to make comments on the proposed change still had an opportunity. Mr. Goldman explained that this proposed change had just gone out to the 30-day public notice and the agency and others can still make public comment on this. Mr. Sullivan commented that he had not seen any minutes of the policy and planning subcommittee. Chair Tikoian noted that the minutes of the policy and planning subcommittee do not come before the full council they are merely at the P and P level. The motion was carried. Mr. Sullivan abstained.

2. STAFF REPORTS

There were no staff reports.

3. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS

Vice Chair Lemont reported that the 22nd and final evidentiary hearing of the Champlin’s application had been held. Vice Chair Lemont stated that they would meet on Block Island in mid-September to take public comment. Vice Chair Lemont said there would be a period of time for briefs to be filed and following that, they will have a workshop and report back to the full council. Vice Chair Lemont noted that this took 22 full hearings and approximately 2,900 pages of testimony to conclude. Mr. Abedon asked if meeting dates had been set for the Block Island meeting and the workshop. Vice Chair Lemont replied that the Block Island hearing is scheduled for Friday, September 16th and the date for the workshop meeting has not been scheduled.

Mr. Fugate reported that the Policy and Planning Subcommittee met last Wednesday to discuss a series of changes that were going to be made to the Council’s Freshwater Wetlands Program. Mr. Fugate said they also discussed changes to the barrier beach section to press some defects and the Policy and Planning Subcommittee recommended that the full council accept the proposed changes and that they go out to public notice for a public hearing.

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

Mr. Sullivan asked that since three items on the agenda, 2005-05-102, 2002-05-070 and 2004-05-024 have no staff objections and no objectors moved passage of these applications and take them off the deck. Mr. Zarrella seconded the motion. Chair Tikoian noted that the council has not done this rule change yet. Chair Tikoian reported that at the last P and P meeting, they discussed certain instances where there are certain applications that do not have objectors and were thinking of creating a consent calendar but it is not in the council’s management procedures yet. Chair Tikoian felt we need to make sure it is in the council’s management procedures. Mr. Sullivan withdrew his motion and Mr. Zarrella withdrew his second to the motion.

5. APPLICATION REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF AN ASSENT.

1990-06-101 JANICE M. MATHEWS – Extension of assent to build dwelling on plat 7, lot 36; Decatur Avenue, Jamestown, RI.

Janice Mathews, the applicant was present. Jean Bennett and Ms. Attaway, the objectors were also present. Chair Tikoian asked the applicant to explain why she needed an extension of the assent. Ms. Mathews explained that she purchased the property last year and had a set of plans with the house at that time. Ms. Mathews said she originally like the house design but then decided to change the design of house. She said she needed two neighbors’ approval on the design, this took about 5-6 months, and they now have a signed agreement. Mr. Fugate stated there had been several attempts for modify this file. Mr. Fugate explained that in order to be eligible for a modification they can only build equal to or smaller to the existing footprint and that you cannot expand on the footprint while applying for a modification. Mr. Fugate wanted to make it clear that they were going forward on the extension request otherwise the applicant would have to apply for a new assent. Jean Bennett, an objector, stated that her family owns property next door. Ms. Bennett stated that the assent was issued in 1992 and expired in 1995. Ms. Bennett said that Ms. Mathew’s project is a completely different project than the original project and that the footprint is larger than the original plans. Ms. Bennett stated that she was not opposed to the project per se but objected to a modification of the original assent. Mr. Fugate explained that under the old regulations that an applicant needed to undertake work at the site within three years. Mr. Fugate noted that they had poured the foundation and completed the ISDS and received a certificate for conformance on the ISDS within the three-year period. Mr. Fugate stated that the application now falls under the new rules for extensions which allows one one-year administrative extension of the assent and three one-year extensions by the council. Vice Chair Lemont stated that the original assent was for approximately a 2,800-foot footprint and they are now asking for a 4,000-foot footprint. Vice Chair Lemont asked what the council was assenting to. Mr. Fugate replied that 2,800-foot footprint. Vice Chair Lemont asked what the applicant was applying for. Ms. Mathews replied that she wanted to preserve what was already approved by the council and then decide what she is going to do when she goes forward with her plans. Chair Tikoian stated that the applicant was asking for an extension of the original assent. Mr. Zarrella stated that the applicant was asking the council to approve a one-year extension to allow her to look at and see what she wants to do. Ms. Matthews replied yes. Mr. Gray stated that the project started within the three-year period and once they did that did they have a window in which the whole project had to be completed by. Mr. Goldman replied no under the old regulations the work had to be undertaken within the three-year period. Mr. Goldman said they made a rule change on extensions as extensions were going on indefinitely. Mr. Gray stated that they are here tonight to grant a one-year extension on the 2,800 foot permit and whether the applicant goes forward with that or not will determine whether the applicant has to come back before the full council or not. Chair Tikoian replied exactly. Mr. Gray said so an extension allows for her to go forward on the 2,800-foot footprint and if she wants more, she has to come back before the full council with a completely new application. Chair Tikoian replied yes. Ms. Barrett said she understood this. Mr. Fugate noted that there had been several attempts by the applicant to submit a new plan for a larger house but that it had been rejected by staff because it would be a modification of the assent. Mr. Reis explained that staff had met with the applicant and rejected the modification of the assent twice. Mr. Reis said they need to maintain the existing footprint, buffer zone requirements and the existing setbacks requirements and if there was an increase in the footprint, they would have to mitigate the impact by controlling the runoff. Mr. Shekarchi, seconded by Mr. Zarrella moved approval of a one-year extension of the assent. Mr. Sullivan wanted to make sure the terms and conditions in the original assent applied. Chair Tikoian replied that they were granting a one-year extension on the assent previously granted by the council. The motion carried on a unanimous voice vote.

6. APPLICATIONS REQUESTING PRELIMINARY DETERMINATINO BEFORE THE FULL COUNCIL:

2005-05-102 ASPEN AEROGELS, INC: Feasibility of chemical storage outside 200 foot contiguous area. Located at Map 304, Block 1, lot 1; 3 Dexter Road, East Providence, Rhode Island.

Richard Sherman, attorney for the applicant was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Fugate gave council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Fugate stated that the application was for a 320 waiver. Mr. Fugate explained that under statue certain categories of activities, the council could grant a waiver of jurisdiction. Mr. Fugate stated that one of those categories is for chemical process transferring the storage facilities which this is one. Mr. Fugate said an applicant can apply for a waiver to this. Mr. Fugate stated that staff reviewed the project and found no problems with it and indicated that there was no impact to the coastal requirement and recommended release of council jurisdiction on this. Vice Chair Lemont, seconded by Mr. Coia moved approval of the 320 waiver. Mr. Sullivan noted that DEM Air Quality permit, a RIPDES permit and an AST registration would still be needed. Chair Tikoian replied that this was in the report. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

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

2005-03-030 RI DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION -- The proposed project involves the demolition of the Sakonnet River Railroad Swing Bridge. The bridge spans the Sakonnet River between Portsmouth and Tiverton, RI, Immediately north of the Route 24 Bridge. The railroad bridge was impacted by a barge in 1988, and has not been utilized since that time. The swing span of the bridge has remained in the open position to allow navigation along the Sakonnet River. The bridge is deterioration and the US Coast Guard (USCG) has requested that it be removed. The project will include removal and disposal of the following: Timber fender system; Operator’s house, tower and machinery; Bridge superstructure; and, Bridge piers. The bridge piers will be removed to below the mudline; however the bridge abutments and causeways will remain. Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be utilized during the demolition and removal.

Emily Holland, RI Dept. of Transportation 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 demolish and remove the railroad bridge and the swing spans which exist in the Sakonnet River. Mr. Reis stated that the existing swing pier will be removed to two feet below the mud lines and that the fixed pier would be removed to the top of the existing footing. He said there was no staff objection to the application and that staff recommended approval of the application with stipulations S1-S7 contained in the staff report. Mr. Shekarchi, seconded by Mr. Gray moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

2002-05-070 BRAD & SHELLEY MARCUS -- An electrically-operated boat lift system at an existing CRMC permitted residential boating facility. Located at plat 16, lot 16; 4 Stonegate Road, Warren, RI.

Brad and Shelley, Marcus, the applicants were present. Herb Sirois, the applicants’ engineer was also present on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Reis gave council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Reis stated that the application was to construct and install a boat lift system to an existing authorized residential boating facility to service two properties. Mr. Reis stated that staff recommended approval of the application. Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Zarrella and Mr. Shekarchi moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations. Mr. Gray noted that he did not see anything in the stipulations to tell applicants who put in boat lifts that they cannot do maintenance on their boat on the lift such as bottom painting and sanding. Mr. Reis reply that there was nothing in the regulations for this. Mr. Gray wanted to add a stipulation that there be no maintenance such as boat sanding, bottom painting or exterior maintenance over tidal waters. Mr. Marcus agreed. Mr. Marcus asked if they could wash their boat. Mr. Goldman replied yes. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

2004-05-024 SPATCO LTD -- A five acre aquaculture farm to culture the American oyster. The farm proposes to broadcast predator proof oysters on the bottom entailing the use of no gear. Oysters will then be harvested using traditional methods.

Robert Rheault, the applicant was present. Mr. Alves gave council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Alves stated that the application was to extend an existing aquaculture lease. Mr. Alves noted that the applicant has an established 5-acre lease that is now full and he wanted to expand it. Mr. Alves stated that there was no objection or complaints last year. Mr. Alves also noted that the Town of Narragansett has no problem with the proposal but they did have a question about the cumulative impact of aquaculture. Mr. Alves said he did explain the CRMC program to them. Mr. Alves stated that this aquaculture would fill up the pond. Chair Tikoian asked if he mapped out areas of aquaculture for the town. Mr. Alves replied no. Mr. Abedon stated that the town letter was concerned with the carry limit for the pond. Mr. Alves replied that he did not take the town’s letter that way. Mr. Alves stated that the applicant worked on the conflicting uses and this will not interfere with recreational activities or commercial fishing. Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Gray moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations. Vice Chair Lemont asked how big the predator resistance size was. Mr. Rheault replied green crab will eat anything up to an 1 ½ inches. Mr. Alves asked what size he was planning to plant. Mr. Rheault replied ½ inch to 1 ½ inches. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

2005-02-088 ELWOOD JOHNSON -- Construct and maintain a residential timber pier, ramp and 150 square foot float facility. The overall facility length is 200 feet +/-. The facility spans approximately 150 feet of coastal wetland (salt marsh). The terminus of the facility extends to 50 feet seaward of mean low water. Located at

Elwood Johnson, the applicant was present. Mr. Reis gave council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Reis stated that the application was to construct a residential boating facility which consists of a 144’ x 4’ wide fixed timber pier which leads to an 18’ ramp and 20’ by 6’ wide slope. Mr. Reis stated that the dock would extend 50’ beyond the mean low mark and have 18” of water at the end of the dock. Mr. Reis stated that there was no staff engineering objection to the dock but that he recommended denial of the application based on environmental concerns. Mr. Reis explained that he was concerned with the wide salt marsh at this site and a 150’ crossing of the marsh. Mr. Reis felt the marsh was a public trust resource. Mr. Reis felt this was a healthy marsh and wanted to protect the marsh. Mr. Reis felt the wetland crossing was large and the marsh had considerable value. Mr. Reis said an alternative for the applicant would be to use a marina rather than put in a dock. Chair Tikoian asked if there was something in the program to prohibit this or was this his opinion. Mr. Reis replied it was his opinion but that there are some criteria’s that needed to be considered for docks in tidal waters. Chair Tikoian asked if he had any recommendations for changes to address his concerns. Mr. Reis replied that the applicant could move the dock closer to the marina side and there would be less impact on the marsh crossing it would reduce it from 150’ to 100’. Mr. Reis said this would impact marina use and the applicant would have to get approval from the abutter to do this. Vice Chair Lemont asked what if they move it 10’ to the north side. Mr. Reis said this just decreases the crossing area. Vice Chair Lemont suggested splitting the difference from the concrete block to the dock. Mr. Reis said there would be less impact and it would further reduce the crossing area. Mr. Reis felt that anything over a 100’ crossing would be an impact. Mr. Fugate said if they bring the dock along the northern wall and turn it out to get depth making the dock and “L” shape and minimize the impact to the marsh. Mr. Reis agreed. Mr. Johnson addressed the first photograph and noted that the furtherest corner has framites and spans around the property. Mr. Johnson noted that he only knew about the 25’ setback from the abutters’ property and was not aware that a variance could be granted to the 25’ setback. Mr. Johnson said he does not want to hurt the marsh and only wanted access to the water like his neighbors. Mr. Johnson stated that the abutter agreed to have the dock up against the seawall as long as it did not interfere with his marina use. Mr. Johnston stated that he was willing to work with staff. Chair Tikoian stated that there were several options mentioned to review and asked if the applicant wanted to take these options to his engineer and come back to the council in 30 days. Mr. Johnson agreed. Mr. Gray asked on page 8 the property to the north was the marina and next to the brick wall what is the surface. Mr. Reis replied that if you look at what is marked on page 11 it shows the concrete blocks which are on the plan and landward of what is the buffer was planted for the marina as part of their assent. Mr. Gray asked what was on the inside of that. Mr. Reis replied inside of that was pervious parking. Mr. Gray suggested that the applicant join with the marina structure for his dock. Mr. Reis stated that he had met with the applicant’s engineer but had not had an opportunity to meet with the applicant. Mr. Shekarchi, seconded by Mr. Coia moved to continue the application for 30 days to allow the applicant to work with the executive director and staff. The application was continued until September 22nd. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

2005-04-030 ABEL FERNANDES -- Construct and maintain a residential boating facility consisting of a 4’ x 130’ (+/-) fixed pier to a terminal 4’ x 20’ T-shaped fixed access pier. Also install a boat lift seaward of the terminal T-shaped fixed access pier. The facility will extend 75’ beyond mean low water therefore a 25’ variance is required to the 50’ standard (Ref. RICRMP 300.4.E.3.(k)). Letters of no objections to this proposal have been submitted with the application from both north and south abutters. Located at plat 36, lot 1; 108 Macomber Lane, Portsmouth, RI.

Abel Fernandes, the applicant was present. Mr. Reis gave council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Reis stated that the application was to construct a residential boating facility consisting of a 3’ x 25’ ramp with a 4’ x 90’ fixed pier and a 4’ x 20’ “T” shaped fixed access pier. Mr. Reis stated that a mechanical lift would be installed at the terminal end of the facility and that the facility will extend 50’ beyond mean low water. Mr. Reis said the staff recommendation is no objection and there are no variances needed. Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Coia moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations and a stipulation that there be no exterior maintenance. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

2003-12-003 MATTHEW AND ROXANNE MELCHIORI – Maintenance – Remove replace decking, cribs, stringers. Located at 14 Gull Road, Narragansett, RI.

Chair Tikoian recused himself.
Vice Chair Lemont presided over the application.
Matthew and Roxanne Melchiori, the applicants were present. Donald Packer, the applicants’ attorney, was also present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Fugate gave council members a brief summary on the application. Mr. Fugate stated that this dock was granted as a residential dock by the council. Mr. Fugate said subsequent to that there were barges and commercial use made of the dock. He said the applicants contended that they did not think this was a residential dock but there was an objector to that. Mr. Fugate stated that Mr. DeAngelis represented the objectors and that it was his understanding that Mr. DeAngelis and the Melchioris reached an agreement that this would not be used as a commercial dock but there could be the occasional tying up of one tugboat to this dock would be permitted. Mr. Packer explained that the applicants applied for maintenance to rebuild the pier but what they received was an assent for a residential dock. Mr. Packer noted that the applicants were concerned because they occasionally tie up a tug boat to the dock. Mr. Packer stated that an agreement had been reached with the objectors and he received a faxed letter from Mr. DeAngelis which stated that the objectors have no objection to the granting of the maintenance assent for the residential boating facility and it is also agreed that the Melchioris will not use the existing dock facility in the future for commercial purposes, that barges and cranes shall not be berthed at the dock facility but does allow for periodic berthing of the tugboat. Mr. Sherkarchi asked if staff agreed to this. Mr. Fugate replied as long as there is no commercial use staff had no problem with the application. Mr. Zarrella asked if this would set a precedent. Mr. Goldman replied that this would not set a precedent. Mr. Zarrella, seconded by Mr. Gray moved approval of the maintenance request with all staff stipulations tand incorporate the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice votre.

8. Enforcement Report – June 2005 and July, 2005

There were none held.

9. Category “A” List

There were none held.

10. Other Business

Mr. Sullivan stated that he had sent a letter on August 2nd to the executive director and the chair requesting that application 2004-06-20, Investco Corp be placed back on the CRMC agenda for reconsideration as their have been material changes in the situation since then. Mr. Goldman stated that the council could not do this as this would have had to take place on the night of hearing or at the next meeting following the vote on the application. Mr. Sullivan felt there were significant material changes since the application decision the land had been donated to the town and the application was moot and that the council needed to readdress this. Mr. Goldman explained that a letter was sent to the applicant stating that no assent was going to be issued on this matter and that his filed had been cancelled. Mr. Sullivan asked that this item be placed on the next agenda to ratify the decision. There being no further business before the council the meeting, the council adjourned
at 7:05 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Grover Fugate

Executive Director CRMC

Reported by Lori A. Field

CALENDAR INDEX