YouTubeFacebookTwittereNewsletter SignUp


RI Coastal Resources Management Council preserve, protect, develop, and restore coastal resources for all Rhode Islanders

In accordance with notice to members of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council, a meeting was held on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 at 6:00 PM at the Narragansett Bay Commission Boardroom – One Service Road, Providence, RI.

Mike Tikoian, Chair
Paul Lemont, Vice Chair
Jerry Zarrella
Jerry Sahagian
Ray Coia
Tom Ricci
Neill Gray
Dave Abedon
Michael Sullivan
Joe Shekarchi
Bruce Dawson

Grover Fugate, CRMC Executive Director
Dave Reis, CRMC Environmental Scientist
Amy Silva, CRMC Environmental Scientist
Tracy Silvia, CRMC Environmental Scientist
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. Vice Chair Lemont, seconded by Mr. Ricci moved approval of the February 28, 2006 minutes. Mr. Goldman noted that the February 28th minutes had been held for members to amend or make corrections. Mr. Goldman stated that he sat down with Lori to do the corrections from the comments received from council members. Mr. Goldman said there
were some additional council comments and requested that the minutes be held to allow council members an additional chance to comment. Vice Chair Lemont withdrew his motion and Mr. Ricci withdrew his second. The February 28th minutes were held until the next meeting.

Chair Tikoian introduced and welcomed new council member, Bruce Dawson to the council. Chair Tikoian stated that Mr. Dawson had been appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.


Vice Chair Lemont reported that the Policy and Planning Subcommittee met on February 22nd and recommended changes to Section 300.4 to add new section for out walls; changes to the Management Procedures Section 4.3 – Schedule of Fees to add Section 4.3.8 for a fee for revised site plans submitted to staff after staff has begun its review; new Section 300.4.B.13 – out walls under the jurisdiction of CRMC and section 4.3 a fee for the number of times an applicant meets with staff. Vice Chair Lemont requested that the proposed changes by the policy and planning subcommittee be received and sent out to public notice.


Mr. Fugate announced there would be a staff presentation tonight.

Chair Tikoian informed council members that Grover and himself presented testimony on behalf of CRMC before the Joint Committee of the Senate on the workings of CRMC, what they’re doing, where there at and answered questions from the committee members. Chair Tikoian stated that the premise of the hearing was for CRMC to produce information on their separation of powers bill.

Chair Tikoian asked for personal privilege. Chair Tikoian noted that there was an article in the newspaper regarding his recusal from certain votes and stated that he recused himself in accordance with the Rhode Island General Laws 25 times over 10 years not 6 months. Chair Tikoian also stated that he enjoys his time on the council. Mr. Zarrella asked for personal privilege. Mr. Zarrella said he did not mind the Chair recusing himself but when the Chair recuses himself and he sits and votes on the application, he found it offensive when the Chair criticizes them in the newspaper. Chair Tikoian said he has not criticized anybody.

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

5. PRESENTATION: MetroBay Special Area Management Plan

Mr. Fugate explained that the presentation was to update council members on theMetroBay Special Area Management Plan and that Jennifer McCann, URI CoastalResources Center would explain the revisions to the new MetroBay SAM Plan. Mr.Fugate stated that this was part of the Providence SAM Plan and address three issues:1) buffers, 2) coastal hazards; and 3) water sheets and how to use them in type 6waters, which are designated for industrial use. Mr. Fugate said this was explained inthe internet map service (the mapper). Jennifer gave a presentation on the internet mapserver and explained that this plan revitalizes northern Narragansett Bay which includesCranston, East Providence, Pawtucket and Providence. Jennifer said the website isavailable for council members and went through and explained the pages on thewebsite. Chair Tikoian thanked Jennifer, CRMC staff and the URI Coastal ResourcesCenter staff for their work on this.


2005-04-101 HENRY & SHEILA KELLY GEDIMAN -- Construct and maintain aresidential boating facility consisting of access stairs, a 4’ x 58’ fixed timber pier, 3’ x 25’ramp, and an 8’ x 18.75’ float. A variance to RICRMP 300.4.E.3.(J) is required (standardsetback from property line is 25’, 15 is proposed). Per Consultants lot 10 which is wherethe dock will eminate from is tied together to lot 7 which contains the residential dwelling.Located at plat 73, lot 10; 1728 Main Road, Tiverton, RI.

Chair Tikoian recused himself. Vice Chair Lemont presided over the application.

Sheila Kelly Gediman, the applicant was present. Joseph DeAngelis, the applicant’sattorney and Herb Sirois, the applicants engineer were also present on behalf of theapplicants. Mr. Reis gave council members a brief summary on the application. Mr.Reis stated that the application is to construct and maintain a residential boating facilityconsisting of access stairs, a 4’ x 58’ fixed timber pier, 3’ x 25’ ramp, and an 8’ x 18.75’float. Mr. Reis stated that the dock extends 45’ beyond MLW. Mr. Reis said the staffbiologist and engineer had no objections to the application. Mr. Reis noted that twovariances from the property line extensions were needed and the abutters objected tothe application. Mr. Reis explained that there was a 25’ setback requirement from theproperty line to the dock. Mr. Reis said this was a narrow lot and that there was 11 feetdistance between the dock and the property lines and that a 14’ variance was needed oneach side. Mr. DeAngelis said this was not run of the mill dock and that this was a fairlysmall lot. Mr. DeAngelis explained that the applicants live across the street and that staffrequested a deed restriction to join the two lots and the applicants agreed. Mr.DeAngelis said the dock is 45’ from MLW and they need two variances from the northand south abutters. Mr. DeAngelis stated that they have Army Corps approval and DOTapproval. Mr. Sirois stated that he felt the applicants met the variance criteria underSection 120. Mr. Sirois explained that the lot is 30 feet wide and cannot meet the CRMCstandard without the variances. Mr. Sirois said that this was the minimum variancenecessary. Mr. Sirois stated that Malcolm Compton’s dock is 84’ +/- to the north and theZiepniewski’s dock is 54’ distance from this dock. Mr. Sirois said that Mrs. Ziepniewskiwishes to expand her dock in the future and if she expands her dock there will be 32’from this dock float to float. Mr. Sirois felt that the 32’ distance was sufficient. ViceChair Lemont noted that when the staff report was written there was only one objectorand asked staff if there report would have been the same with the 2nd objector. Mr. Reisreplied yes. Vice Chair Lemont asked if these types of variances had been approved inthe past. Mr. Reis replied yes if there were no navigational hazards.


Mary Ziepniewski, the objector was present with her engineer Joe Hanlon. Ms.Ziepniewski referred to an aerial photograph and felt that even if the dock was 32’ fromher dock that it would be very close to her property line and wall. Ms. Ziepniewski feltthere would be no room for the boats to move around. Ms. Ziepniewski said there wereno size limits on the boats on the dock and felt this dock was too close to her propertyline. Ms. Ziepniewski noted that the applicants lived across the street and were parttimeresidents. Ms. Ziepniewski was concerned with the 50’ standard and setback. ViceChair Lemont explained that the applicant own land and have rights and the question iswhether the dock is allowed under the CRMC rules and regulations. Mr. Fugateexplained the 50’ standard and that the requirement is a 25’ setback from the propertyline. Ms. Ziepniewski felt that there was not enough space. Ms. Ziepniewski said thatthe two docks to the south rent out their slips. Mr. Fugate explained that you can havefour boats on a residential dock or you would be in violation of the assent. Mr. Hanlonsaid he has worked with Ms. Ziepniewski and worked on a proposed float for her dock.Mr. Hanlon was concerned with the 25’ offset requirement and felt that there would bevibration during the construction and that this could cause damage to Ms. Ziepniewski’shouse because her house is on pilings in the water. Mr. Fugate noted that theapplication requires an Army Corps permit and that permit had been received. Mr. Reisnoted that a number of houses in this area are in tidal waters not just this house. Mr.Hanlon was concerned with parking in the area and felt this would infringe on her privacywhen she uses her patio. Mr. Hanlon felt the applicants knew a variance would beneeded for this lot when they purchased the property. Mr. Sahagian felt commentsrelating to the Ms. Ziepniewski’s privacy and the purchase of the property should come from an attorney not the engineer. Ms. Ziepniewski submitted photographs of the areaas exhibits. Mr. Zarrella asked how big her boat was. Ms. Ziepniewski said she has arow boat right now. Mr. Zarrella asked how far her pilings were in the water 3 or 4 feet.Mr. Hanlon replied the pilings were 10-15 feet in the water. Mr. Zarrella asked howmuch of the living space was over high tide. Mr. Hanlon replied the elevation was 3-5feet. Mr. Goldman noted that Ms. Ziepniewski put a line on the photograph and that thecouncil could only accept it for ID only. Mr. Gray said the objector’s dock is 19’ from theproperty line. Mr. Hanlon replied yes. Mr. Gray explained that half of 50’ would be 25’which would make the dock 6 feet off the property line. Mr. Gray asked if the house wasphysically over tidal waters. Mr. Hanlon replied yes. Mr. Gray said the objectorsconcern was with multiply vessels on the applicants dock and noted that there was only3-4 feet at lowtide and the dock was 18’ long. Mr. Gray felt the dock could not beoverburden with 4 large vessels. Mr. Hanlon said the dock was 40-50 feet long andextends to the end shore float of the applicants’ dock. Mr. Gray said there was a 25discrepancy on the dock length and what was on the plan. Mr. DeAngelis replied thatthe float was taken out during the winter. Mr. Hanlon said that Ms. Ziepniewski has nofloats on her dock. Vice Chair Lemont asked when Mr. Sirois took the measurements.Mr. Sirois replied in March 2005. Vice Chair Lemont asked why the discrepancy andneed to look at whether it is 25’ or maybe 50’. Mr. DeAngelis replied that there wasnothing erroneous in Mr. Sirois’s testimony and there would still be 32’ of separationbetween the docks. Mr. Hanlon responded that there would be 32’ from the fixed portionof the dock and 28’ from the float. Mr. Dawson noted that the aerial photograph on pagep10 has a dock and that the assessor’s information on page p18 has no dock. Mr.Dawson asked if there was a dock on lot 8. Mr. Sirois replied that the photo predatedthe application and said that the dock on lot 8 is further to the north and that his plandoes not show this. Mr. Sirois said the assessor’s map was an older photo. Mr. Grayreferred to the site plan on page p10 which showed lots 9, lot 10 and lot 11 – Ms.Ziepniewski’s dock and asked if the “T” dock was on lot 8. Mr. Sirois stated that the “T”dock is on lot 7. Mr. Gray said he was not seeing a dock on lot 8. Mr. Sirois repliedcorrect. Mr. DeAngelis asked if Mr. Sirois took the measurements for the dock on lot 8.Mr. Sirois replied yes and that the dock is 84’. Chee Laureanno, a registeredrepresentative/property agent for Malcolm Crompton was present on behalf of Mr.Crompton. Mr. Goldman explained that under the rules that only an attorney, theapplicant or a family member could represent an applicant. Mr. Goldman said she wouldneed a power of attorney or an attorney. Mr. Goldman stated that Ms. Laureanno didnot have the standing to represent the applicant. Vice Chair Lemont said they cannotallow her to testify. Ms. Laureanno wanted to submit photographs of the site. Mr. Graynoted that there was a letter on page p27 in the packet signed by Ms. Laureanno can thecouncil consider the letter in their deliberations. Mr. Goldman replied that the letterneeded to be signed by the applicant. Mr. Gray asked if the variance still applied. Mr.Golman replied the applicant would still need a variance and need to get a letter of noobjection from the abutter. Vice Chair Lemont asked Mr. DeAngelis if he thought theycould resolve this issue. Mr. DeAngelis replied he thought they could but xxx withdrewher letter of no objection and objected to the application. Vice Chair Lemont asked ifthey would agree to a limit of two boats on the dock. Mr. DeAngelis replied yes. ViceChair Lemont asked if there were any other staff stipulations. Mr. Reis replied no justthe standard staff stipulations. Mr. Gray noted the objectors’ concern of piling drivingduring construction and damage from the vibration and asked if this was a legal issue ora CRMC issue. Mr. Fugate replied that it was a legal issue. Mr. Gray, seconded by Mr.Ricci moved approval of the application with the two variances contingent on theapplicants tying the two lots together, a limit of two boats on the dock and all staffstipulations. Mr. Shekarchi asked what was the purpose of tying of the two lots together.

Mr. Fugate explained that there had to be a lot association with a residence for a dock and that this lot was across the street and that the applicant could not sell off the lot with the dock on it. Mr. Shekarchi and Mr. Zarrella were opposed. The motion carried.

Mr. Sahagian left at 7:00 p.m. to attend another meeting.

Vice Chair Lemont called for a recess at 7:00 p.m. Chair Tikoian called the meeting back to order at 7:08 p.m.

2005-05-125 NANCY HURD -- Construct and maintain a 161’ residential boating facilityconsisting of a 4’ X 126’ fixed timber pier, a 3’ X 20’ ramp, and a 10’ X 15’ terminal float.The facility will extend 100’ seaward of mean low water (MLW) which requires a varianceof 50’ from RICRMP Standard 300.4.E.3(k). Located at plat 382, lot 357; 236 ChannelView, Warwick, RI.

Nancy Hurd, the applicant was present. Mr. Shekarchi explained that he had done workfor the applicant’s husband two years ago and that he had no conflict with theapplication. Mr. Shekarchi also noted that he spoke with legal counsel on this and feltthat he did not have to recuse himself. Mr. Reis gave council members a brief summaryon the application. Mr. Reis stated that the application was to construct and maintain a161’ residential boating facility consisting of a 4’ X 126’ fixed timber pier, a 3’ X 20’ ramp,and a 10’ X 15’ terminal float. Mr. Reis stated that dock extends 100’ seaward of MLWwith requires a 50’ variance. Mr. Reis stated that the staff biologist and engineerrecommended approval of the application. Mr. Shekarchi, seconded by Mr. Zarrellamoved approval of the application with all staff stipulations. The motion was carried on aunanimous voice vote.

2 005-09-061 HARBOUR ISLAND IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION -- Establish amarina perimeter limit and a boat capacity at an existing facility. The proposed MPL isshown on the attached plans and the proposed boat capacity is 20. A dinghy dock isalso utilized by approximately 8 dinghys which are not included in the boat capacity citedabove. Located at Plat Y-1, lot 117; Cedar Island Road, Narragansett, RI.

John Kennedy, Co-Chair, Stewart Mason, President and John Quirk, a member of theHarbour Island Improvement Association were present. Tracy Silvia gave councilmembers a brief summary on the application. Ms. Silvia stated that the application wasto establish a marina perimeter limit with a 20 boat capacity increase. Ms. Silvia statedthat the application required a variance for the sanitary facility. Ms. Silvia noted that twoobjections had been received. Ms. Silvia stated that the applicant relocated the easternproperty line to address the objection. Mr. Fugate noted that a variance had beenrequested for the existing marina. Mr. Gray asked if the marina perimeter line (MPL)was finalized or if they are doing that now. Mr. Fugate replied that they are finalizing ittonight. Ms. Silva noted that they typically look at pulling it within 10 feet of the outerpiling and felt it could be pulled back. Mr. Gray said the marina perimeter limit gives anapplicant an area within they can do work and felt they should follow the piling linesthere now and protect the abutters.


Cindy and Mark Jezerski, the abutters were concerned with the mooring field and theparking areas. Mr. Jererski wanted a stipulation that they could not expand the boatcapacity. Chair Tikoian explained that if the applicant wanted to expand the boatcapacity they would have to come back to CRMC. Ms. Silva noted that the applicant asked that the boat capacity not be limited and that the 25% expansion be allowed. Mr.Fugate explained that there was a one-time expansion allowed. Mr. Jezerski asked howcome the moorings were not included in the number of boats. Ms. Silva replied that themoorings are handled by the town and that there are a number of dinghies in the area.Chair Tikoian said moorings are not included in a boat complex. Mrs. Jezerski saidthere are 28 boats on the dock, 8 dinghies on the dock and racks on the dock donewithout permits and vegetation removed. Mrs. Jezerski said the parking lot is 50’x100’and there was suppose to be one parking space per boat. Mrs. Jezerski felt there wouldbe impact on the recreational use of the area. Mrs. Jezerski said there has beenexpansion of this dock since the 1960’s. Mrs. Jezerski wanted no more expansion ofthe area not even the 25% because she felt the applicant already did this. Chair Tikoianasked her to clarify her statement about the racks and vegetation removed. Mrs.Jezerski stated that there was sea grass and apple trees in front of her property and theywere removed to put up the racks. Mr. Fugate addressed the parking spaces and statedthat the parking spaces relate to the marina slips not the mooring field. Mr. Fugateaddressed the dinghy issue and noted they count boat slips not dinghies, canoes orkayaks. Ms. Silva said they did look at the racks and they are permitted to storedinghies. Mr. Kennedy stated that not all boats on moorings use boat slips. He said theracks were done before he was part of the dock committee and done about 10-12 yearsago. Mr. Kennedy said there was not parking problems because not all the parkingspaces are used at the same time. Mr. Kennedy said there are two social events duringthe year and there are problems with parking. Mr. Kennedy said there has been noexpansion since 1988. Mr. Kennedy explained that they are looking to permit what isthere now. Chair Tikoian asked how many households the marina serves. Mr. Kennedyreplied there are 400 houses in the area and he was not sure. Director Sullivan askedhim to address the objectors comments on the substantial vegetation removed. Mr.Kennedy replied that this was not done and that they only removed vegetation when theracks were put in and not since then. Ms. Silva noted that this was done without apermit and they moved the rack upland. Mr. Shekarchi noted that Attorney KristenSherman had filed an objection and asked if this objection had been satisfied. Ms. Silvareplied yes. Mr. Shekarchi asked if there was any change in her recommendation sincehearing the objectors’ objections. Ms. Silva replied no. Mrs. Jezerski was concernedwith expansion of the area and the effect on shellfish in the area. Chair Tikoian asked ifshe was concerned with further expansion being considered. Mrs. Jezerski said they donot want any expansion not even the 25% expansion. Mr. Gray replied that the 25%expansion of the marina perimeter limit was allowed. Mr. Fugate explained that anymarina perimeter limit expansion would have to come back before the full council andthere could only be a 25% expansion for 5 boats and the applicant would have to meetthe expansion standards. Mr. Gray asked if there was parking with this. Mr. Fugatereplied yes there is parking associated with this. Ms. Silva replied there are 14 spacesfor parking. Mr. Gray asked if a variance for parking was needed or if they met theregulations for the parking. Ms. Silva replied they met the parking requirements but thatthey needed a variance for the sanitation only. Chair Tikoian asked if the expansionneeded water quality certification. Mr. Fugate replied yes. Mr. Gray asked if the dockswas for members of the association and not rented. Mr. Kennedy replied that the dockswere for members of the association and that they needed to show ID and proof ofresidence in the Harbour Association. Mr. Gray wanted this to be part of the stipulations.Mr. Zarrella stated that the objectors were not opposing the marina assent but opposingany expansion to the marina. Mr. and Mrs. Jezerski replied that they are opposed to anexpansion but not to what is there now. Mr. Dawson asked how they established the 20-boat capacity when there are 28 boats there now. Mr. Fugate explained that there are20 boats and 8 dinghies. Mr. Shekarchi, seconded by Mr. Zarrella moved approval of the application with all staff stipulations, the sanitation variance, the dock be limited to association members and the marina perimeter limit be adjusted to the structures. Mr. Kennedy noted that only association members can use the dock. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

2004-08-097 FREDERICK & LOUISE WILLIAMS -- Construct and maintain: a singlefamilydwelling, septic system (ISDS), individual well, detached shed and driveway. Asproposed, the project will result in approximately 10,840 square feet of disturbance (loss)to jurisdictional wetlands of which approximately 3,800 square feet of disturbance willoccur within the “swamp” itself. The affected wetland is regulated by CRMC’sFreshwater Wetlands in the Vicinity of the Coast Program. Located at plat 7, lot 8, WestMain Road, Little Compton, RI.

John Boehnert, attorney for the applicant was present. Scott Rabideau, the applicants’wetland biologist was also present on behalf of the applicant. Heather Steeres,president of the Sakonnett River Association and her biologist Linda Steere, WendyWallik, Save the Bay and Cynthia Giles, Conservation Law Foundation, the objectorswere also present. Mr. Reis gave council members a brief summary on the application,.Mr. Reis state that the application was to construct and maintain a single-family dwelling,septic system (ISDS), individual well, detached shed and driveway. He said the projectwill result in approximately 10,840 square feet of disturbance (loss) to jurisdictionalwetlands of which approximately 3,800 square feet of disturbance will occur within the“swamp” itself. Mr. Reis stated that there was a long history on this application and thathe weighed this against the freshwater wetland rules. Vice Chair Lemont asked if thehouse could be moved any where else on the lot. Mr. Reis passed out an aerial of theparcel which is a 5.2 acre parcel. Mr. Reis said this was a difficult application to reviewbecause of the impact to the wetlands. Mr. Reis stated that there are two areas on theparcel they looked at, the southwest corner which shows a roof top of the existingcottage and the northeast area which is the currently proposed for the project. Mr. Reissaid DEM has been involved with the application as well. Mr. Reis stated that theresolution was that the applicant needed to restore the wetland destroyed and that thishad been done. Mr. Reis said the clearing of the wetland had been done without apermit and had been restored. Mr. Reis said the northeast corner was the best area forthe project and that he southwest area would require an ISDS, crossing of the wetlandand require 2000 s.f. of fill for a driveway. Mr. Reis explained the northeast corner andsaid impact of wetland filling was 3,800 s.f. of wetland. Mr. Reis said this area has beencleared and partially restored. Mr. Reis stated that the applicant had received zoningapproval for the northeast corner and can only use if for a residential home. Mr. Reissaid the applicant received a variance for the setback from the road and wetland. Mr.Reis said this was the minimum variance necessary for any development and that theentire remaining property would be put in a conservation easement except for thesouthwest corner. Mr. Reis said there were a number of staff stipulations. Mr. Reis feltthat it was less detrimental to develop on the northeast site and that there would be nofurther development in the southwest corner. Mr. Reis said there would be no expandeduse of the property. Mr. Reis stated that staff recommended approval of the applicationwith stipulations and the conservation easement. Mr. Reis felt this was the lessdamaging assessment. Mr. Fugate said this was a fairly large parcel, 5.2 acres and thatthey would be altering 3,800 s.f. of wetland. Mr. Fugate stated that the parcel currentlysupports a structure and the applicant did restore the area. Mr. Fugate said theapplicant has an approved ISDS from DEM, water quality certification and localapprovals are in place. Mr. Fugate stated that there would be no expansion to theexisting structure. Mr. Fugate felt the current location for the proposed project was the best location. Chair Tikoian noted that this application goes back to 1987 for apreliminary determination by DEM. Mr. Goldman explained that in 1993 there wasSuperior Court action for a DEM violation and that the courts allowed DEM to go forwardwith enforcement action and that the applicant filed a petition for cert. Mr. Goldmannoted that in 1994 the petition for cert was denied and page p65 in the packet gives thesummary of this. Chair Tikoian stated that in 2004 the applicant received local approvaland the Historical Preservation Commission approval. Chair Tikoian said in January2006 the applicant received DEM ISDS and water quality certification approval. ChairTikoian asked the applicant what happened from 1994 to 2003. Mr. Boehnert said theydid not seek permits for the application during this period. Mr. Boehnert stated that theDEM permits needed to be explained and gave a summary of the DEM process. Mr.Boehnert said the applicant altered the wetland prior to the 1998 DEM jurisdiction. ChairTikoian noted that this was prior to the CRMC jurisdiction in 1998. Mr. Rabideau wasaccepted as an wetland biologist expert. Mr. Rabideau stated that he worked on thisapplication and was familiar with the property an the wetland on the property. Mr.Rabideau stated that he delineated the wetland edge in 2002 which was approved byCRMC staff. Mr. Rabideau explained the first plan and said this showed the ISDS plan,the colored swamp area, the green area was the 3,800 s.f. of swamp and the blue areawas the buffer area. Mr. Rabideau said the second plan was a copy of the aerial passedout by Mr. Reis and he took the wetland area and the highlighted the 50’ buffer areawhich also shows the northeast and southwest areas. Mr. Rabideau said the black areais the path area. Mr. Rabideau said the plan currently depicts the site. Mr. Boehnertsubmitted both plans as exhibits. Mr. Rabideau explained both areas, the ISDS andwhere they would put the house. Mr. Rabideau said in the southwest area there wouldbe 12,000 s.f. of wetland disturbance and in the northeast area they received a variancefrom the town for the road for the ISDS and there would be 3,800 s.f. of swampdisturbed. Mr. Rabideau said in the southwest area there would be a lot of disturbanceto the Sakonnet Preservation land. Mr. Rabideau said in the northeast area there is lessimpact to the wetland and more impact to the swamp. Mr. Rabideau stated that in thesouthwest they would have to put in a roadway and driveway and there would bedisturbance to the wetland area. Mr. Rabideau felt that putting the dwelling on thenortheast corner there would be less impact to the wetland area. Mr. Rabideau said hereviewed the CRMC staff report and agrees with the staff report. Mr. Rabideau said inhis opinion as a wetland biologist he felt they avoided the impact to the impact and thiswas the minimum impact. Mr. Rabideau did a suitable mitigation plan for the wetlandimpact. Mr. Rabideau felt there would be no adverse impact and no long term adverseimpact. Mr. Rabideau felt this was not a random alteration of a wetland. Mr. Rabideaufelt this was a necessary wetland alteration to use the property. Mr. Rabideau said hisopinion was in his narrative report he submitted to the council. Mr. Shekarchi asked if theDEM water quality certification approval on January 24, 2006 was for the northeast siteor the southwest site. Mr. Rabideau replied the approval was for the northeast site. Mr.Shekarchi said the conservation plan on page p24 was for the northern portion andasked why the southwest portion was not included. Mr. Boehnert replied that the shed inthe southwest corner is used for recreational use and will not be expanded and therewould only be foot traffic to the shed. Mr. Boehnert said the conservation easementincludes almost all of the property except the shed. Mr. Zarrella asked how thisapplication was different from the Bonnet Shores application. Mr. Rabideau replied thatthe staff report recommended approval of this application, these were two differentprojects and wetlands. Mr. Rabideau said they worked with staff on the application andthere were no professional differences of opinions. Mr. Zarrella said they are taking 1/4area of swamp. Mr. Rabideau responded 3,800 s.f. of swamp. Mr. Zarrella said hethought the new regulations would prevent something like this happening again. Chair Tikoian stated that this application fell under the previous regulations in place not thenew regulations. Mr. Zarrella said he has a problem with this application. Mr. Fugateexplained that they have to treat the application under the regulations in place at thetime of the application. Mr. Abedon said there would be no adverse impact to thewetland. Mr. Rabideau replied there would be no adverse impact to the function andvalues of the wetland. Mr. Abedon asked if this was equal to what staff says. Mr. Reisfelt there would not be significant impact to the wetland. Director Sullivan asked if thiswas an unavoidable impact or encroachment to the wetland for the additional wetlanddisturbance for the shed of 3,000 s.f. Director Sullivan said the shed was for ancillaryuse and the structure was an unnecessary impact on the wetland. Mr. Rabideau agreedand said there would be a 25’ construction setback from the wetland. Director Sullivansaid the shed is on filled land and asked what impact what was stored in the shed wouldhave rather than what stored the home. Mr. Rabideau replied if the shed was not therethe chemicals stored in the shed would be stored in the basement of the home. DirectorSullivan said on the southwest corner was a potting shed used to store pesticides, fuels,etc. Mr. Rabideau said yes and the shed was in conformance with the CRMC rules.Director Sullivan asked if there would be more potential impact if there were two sheds.Mr. Radideau replied yes.


Heather Steers, president of the Sakonnet River Association, was opposed to theapplication. Mr. Fugate noted that Linda Steere had testified before CRMC before andwas qualified as a wetland biologist expert. Ms. Steeres stated that she represents theassociation. Ms. Steeres stated that she owns AP 7, Lot 9-6 which abuts the Williamsproperty. Ms. Steeres felt there would be disturbance and lost of the 10,800 s.f. ofjurisdiction wetland. Ms. Steeres said they were opposed to the application becausethey felt the applicant did not look at a lot impact site and minimize the impact to thewetland. Ms. Steeres said they submitted a letter dated 11/12/04 to CRMC with arecommendation of an alternate site by Linda Steere which was absent from the CRMCfile. Ms.Steeres said she faxed letters to Mr. Fugate on 3/9/06 and 3/10/06 askingCRMC staff to make the recommendation of the alternate site part of the record. Ms.Steeres felt wetlands were vital to the public and benefited the environment. Ms.Steeres requested that CRMC not grant the assent and look at the southwest cornersite. Mr. Shekarchi asked if these objections were done at the local level and did theymake their objections known at the local level. Ms. Steeres replied no they did not. Ms.Steere stated that she has been involved with the project since 2005 to object to theproject and raise the issue whether other alternatives were looked at to minimize theimpact to the wetland. Ms. Steere said she looked at the southwest corner which has anexisting roadway, path and shed. Ms. Steere said the area to the north of this is35’x100’ area which they looked at as an alternate site in the back corner. Ms. Steerefelt the applicant could explore this to use existing roadway and eliminate wetland filling.Ms. Steere said there were a lot of questions whether the southwest location could beused. Ms. Steere felt the applicant did not have to disturb the biological wetland. Ms.Steere felt the applicant did not minimize the impact to the wetland and the project wasnot minimized to the maximum extent. Ms. Steere said that under the new rules thisproject would not be allowed. Mr. Abedon asked where the stream is that goes into theSakonnet River. Ms. Steere said there was a teardrop stream on the map which is onthe back corner of the property. Chair Tikoian noted that the letters that Ms. Steeresreferred to had been circulated to council members. Mr. Gray asked if the 35’x100’ areaMs. Steere referred to was the dotted line area. Ms. Steere replied yes. Mr. Gray askedif the road was a town road or a private road. Ms. Steeres replied a private road. Mr.Gray said the applicant would have to get permission to use the road. Mr. Zarrella asked if the objectors offered to purchase the property. Ms. Steeres replied no shewould have to talk to the board. Mr. Zarrella felt this would be better if it wasconservation land and that DEM has funds for this. Director Sullivan noted that Ms.Steere agreed with function of fragmites and felt the placement of the dwelling in thesouthwest corner was better. Ms. Steere felt other options needed to be looked at andthat they not alter a biological wetland. Director Sullivan agreed with the logicalsequence of wetland and the alternative is to avoid, minimize and mitigate. Ms. Steereagreed and felt this was not done. Mr. Reis stated that the report did look at alternative.Mr. Reis said they did look at shed which looked like a small cottage with some use andwas in an undisturbed site. Mr. Reis said they looked at the habitat. Mr. Reis stated thatthe conservation land abuts this and would not be disturbed. Mr. Reis said there was alarge area of undisturbed land to the west. Wendy Wallik, Save the Bay, stated that theywere opposed to the application. Ms. Wallik stated that they submitted their objection in2004 and they still object to the application as there has been no change since theprevious plan. Ms. Wallik said they were concerned with building on a swamp. Ms.Wallik said the applicant altered the wetland without approval and felt they should not beallowed to build because they altered the wetland. Ms. Wallik stated that the zoningapproval and Mr. Smith’s comments were already part of the record on page p31. Ms.Wallik felt the board may not have had all the necessary information when they madetheir decision. Ms. Wallik felt the conservation easement would not apply and protectthe land if the land was transferred. Ms. Wallik felt their might be another alternate sitefor this project. Ms. Wallik urged CRMC to deny the application. Mr. Shekarchi said Ms.Wallik felt the zoning board based its decision on the wrong information and asked ifthey objected or appealed the zoning board decision or the approvals of the DEM waterquality certification permit or ISDS permit. Ms. Wallik replied no. Director Sullivan notedthat they have no standing to object to the DEM water quality certification or ISDS. Mr.Goldman said that he reviewed the language for the conservation easement and that theeasement runs with the land and applies to any successors. Mr. Fugate noted that theshed would be used for accessory use and there could not be any further subdivision ofthe land. Mr. Fugate said they would limit the use to the small shed and it would also berecorded in the land evidence records and run with the land. Cynthia Giles,Conservation Law Foundation, referred to the application last summer to build a houseon a wetland. Ms. Giles stated that the CRMC had new rules and regulations withregards to building on a wetland. Ms. Giles felt that this application was the same aslast year’s application because the lot was 90% wetland. Ms. Giles stated that the staffrecommended approval of the application. Chair Tikoian replied that the staff report isthere and that the council is here to hear the application and make a decision. Ms. Gilesfelt the protecting wetlands is the CRMC’s job. wetlands. Ms. Giles said the DEM waterquality certification and ISDS did not say it was appropriate to fill wetlands. Ms. Gilessaid the local building and zoning approvals were contingent on CRMC approval. Mr.Giles felt that it was up to the council to decide if a wetland should be filled. Ms. Gilesnoted that there was no staff engineering report in the file. Mr. Fugate explained thatfreshwater applications only require biologist review unless there is a flood area then anapplication would need engineering approval. Ms. Giles said the report said building ahome on the northeastern part would be difficult. Ms. Giles felt the council could stilldeny the application and protect the wetland. Fran Clark, Little Compton ConservationCommission, said the commission had not weighed in on this application. Mr. Shekarchisaid it was troubling to him that they did not object at the local level. Ms. Clark repliedthat they were not notified by the town about the application. Mr. Boehnert said Ms.Steere’s statement regarding looking at an alternate site was not true they did look at analternate site at the southwest corner and it was determined that it was not viable tobuild in this area by both CRMC and their consultant. Mr. Boehnert said the wetland rule change did not apply to this application and that it falls under the old regulations. Mr.Boehnert noted that the previous alteration of the wetland had not done any harm. Mr.Reis said the jurisdiction wetland was the same rule for wetlands. Mr. Reis saidjurisdiction wetland has value as does regulation wetlands. Mr. Rabideau wanted tostress the importance of the conservation easement. Mr. Gray said he was in aquandary regarding crossing the solid line for filling in the northeast corner and filling inthe southwest corner within the solid line. Mr. Gray said looking at the photograph thefinger in the southwest corner juts into the wetland and there would be instrusion to thewetland on all three sides. Mr. Gray said he can see what staff is saying and what Ms.Steere is saying that they can stay within finger. Mr. Gray asked what the benefit of theland conservation was. Mr. Fugate replied that the conservation easement was a benefitto CRMC and it protects the land. Mr. Gray asked if this application was the same asthe other application. Mr. Fugate said no, the other application had no local approvals.Mr. Gray said there was no balance with a conservation easement. Mr. Fugate said nothey were building on 90% of the lot. Mr. Gray felt there was a benefit to the easementand it keeps them from further developing. Mr. Zarrella said he is an advocate forproperty rights but his obligation was to the people of Rhode Island to protect the land.Mr. Zarrella felt that this application was similar to the Santilli application. Mr. Zarrellafelt they needed a site visit on this. Mr. Zarrella disagreed with Ms. Steere on the35’x100’ house as the applicant had to meet town setbacks. Mr. Abedon said the housewas 30’x48’ and asked if the house had been bigger than this and reduced. Mr. Reissaid the house could be reduced. Mr. Ries noted that the applicants have owned theland for twenty years. Mr. Reis said it was his intent to protect the interest of the state.Mr. Reis felt the applicant qualified for a permit on this house. Mr. Abedon said if thehouse was 4 bedrooms could they reduce it to 3 bedrooms. Mr. Boehnert said theyreduced the house to 3 bedrooms with no garage. Mr. Abedon asked if the 45’ setbackwas the maximum from the town. Mr. Boehnert replied that the 45’ was the limit from thetown. Director Sullivan said this was the maximum they could get for the setback.Director Sullivan said the DEM ISDS and water quality certification should not beconstrued for granting permit. Direction Sullivan said in his opinion the applicant has notavoided, minimized or mitigated the impact to the wetland. Director Sullivan said hecould support something different than this. Director Sullivan said as proposed therewas a loss of wetland and there was no restriction on another shed in the area. DirectorSullivan found it difficult to accept the project as proposed. Mr. Shekarchi disagreedwith Director Sullivan and felt that DEM ISDS, water quality certification and localapproval mean a lot as well as weighing the staff reports and recommendation. Mr.Shekarchi felt the Narragansett vote did not weight in. Mr. Shekarchi moved approval ofthe application with all staff stipulations and that the southwest shed be part of theconservation easement. There was no second. Chair Tikoian was concerned with thecumulative impact, saving the conservation easement and the impact to the SakonnetRiver. Mr. Reis felt there was minimal impact and this was a small percentage of area.Mr. Reis said if this was another wetland and it had a domino effect he would beconcerned. Director Sullivan asked if Mr. Reis agreed that including the existing shed inthe southwest corner would be a good thing to protect the wetland. Mr. Reis replied yes.Mr. Gray said the questions is have they gone far enough to avoid, minimize andmitigate. Mr. Gray asked the applicant if they could come up with a better plan andcome back to the council with a less intrusive plan.

Chair Tikoian called for a recess at 9:34 p.m. to allow Mr. Boehnert to speak with the applicant. Chair Tikoian called the meeting back to order at 9:40 p.m.

Director Sullivan asked for legal counsel advice and asked if the council rejects theapplication as is and the applicant comes back with a different proposal would theapplication fall under the new regulations. Mr. Goldman replied yes if this was the finalagency action, a new application would fall under the new rules. Director Sullivan askedif the applicant asked for a continuance to modify the application would it fall under thenew rules. Mr. Goldman replied if the application was held open at CRMC it would fallunder the old rules. Mr. Boehnert said he would like the opportunity to work with CRMCon a new footprint. Chair Tikoian asked how long the applicant would need 30, 60, or 90days. Mr. Boehnert replied 30 days. Director Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Ricci moved tocontinue the application 30 days to allow the applicant to work with staff. The motionwas carried on a unanimous voice vote. Mr. Zarrella, Mr. Coia and Director Sullivanwanted to visit the site. Mr. Zarrella asked if there was any objection to them visiting thesite. There was none.

Chair Tikoian left at 9:43 p.m. Vice Chair Lemont presided over the remainder of the meeting.

2005-06-003 MICHAEL & MAUREEN ANTONELLIS – Raze and remove existing dwelling; Construct new dwelling, ISDS, permeable driveway (relocate drainage); serviced by town water; with a planted buffer. Located at plat 40, lot 30-A; 312 Prospect Lane, Portsmouth, RI.

Sean Coffey, attorney for the applicants was present on behalf of the applicants. EricOffenberg, the applicants’ engineer and Scott Rabiodeau, the applicants’ wetlandbiologist were also present on behalf of the applicants. Ms. Silva gave council membersa brief summary on the application. Ms. Silva explained that the application was for newconstruction on property in Portsmouth. Ms. Silva stated that there was an uninhabitedshack on the property with a new dwelling. Ms. Silva noted that the application fallsunder the coastal and freshwater wetland jurisdiction which requires a 50’ buffer zoneand a 100’ buffer from the wetland under CRMC jurisdiction. Ms. Silva said the applicantis requesting an 18’ variance to the coastal buffer and a 100’ buffer variance to thewetland buffer. Ms. Silva said she met with the applicant numerous times and workedon the application. Ms. Silva said staff had no objection to the application. Vice ChairLemont noted that no staff objection to the 100’ buffer variance was unique. Ms. Silvareplied yes but this was to eliminate no fill between the house and the stream. Mr.Coffey stated that there was extensive staff review of the application. Mr. Coffey saidthe applicant has ISDS approval. Mr. Coffey said the house was within 100’ of thestream and this was the maximum setback to the coastal feature. Mr. Coffey stated thatthis was a two-bedroom house and that there would be grading for the ISDS. Mr. Coffeyexplained that they would restore the areas adjacent to the coastal feature and makeimprovements to the buffer area. Mr. Coffey said they reviewed the staff biologist andengineer reports. Mr. Coffey stated that the applicants’ have done all they can to movethe project away from the coastal feature. Mr. Coffey said the biologist reduced thevariances and anticipated the impacts to the maximum extent possible. Mr. Coffey saidthey agreed to the staff stipulations. Ms. Silva noted that the plan on page p9 in thepacket was different than the plan they reviewed and approved. Vice Chair Lemont, aswell as, Mr. Gray and Mr. Shekarchi objected to not having the correct plan in thepacket. Mr. Offenberg stated that there was not change in the ISDS but that they movedthe house further away. Ms. Silva said the plan in the packet was not the same planreviewed by staff. Vice Chair Lemont explained that the packets are sent to councilmembers 5 days in advance for council members to review. Vice Chair Lemont said council members did not have the correct plan to review to base their decision on. Vice Chair Lemont polled the council to see who wanted to move forward on the application:

Mr. Shekarchi Yes
Mr. Gray No
Mr. Ricci No
Mr. Zarrella Yes
Mr. Dawson No
Mr. Coia Yes
Dir. Sullivan No
Vice Chair Lemont No
Mr. Abedon No

3 Affirmative 6 Negative 0 Absentation.

The application was continued. Mr. Coffey requested that the application be continued to the April 25th hearing. Mr. Gray asked if the 100’ freshwater wetland on the property was a variance. Mr. Silva replied it was not a variance. Mr. Gray said he was not seeing 100% variance. Mr. Fugate explained that they are typically coastal variances. Mr. Dawson requested that any additional in the plan be outlined so that council members are aware of them. Mr. Shekarchi stated that he did not see the objectors’ letter in the packet and wanted it in the file. Ms. Silva noted that the objectors’ letter was not in the packet. Mr. Abedon wanted a larger scale for the photographs. The application was continued.

7. Enforcement Report – February 2006

There were none held.

8. Category “A” List

There were no Category A’s held.

There being no further business before the council the meeting, the council adjourned at 10:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Grover Fugate
Executive Director CRMC
Reported by Lori A. Field


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

An Official Rhode Island State Website