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 Tuesday, August 15, 2006 at 5:00 p.m. at Piccerelli Gilstein & Co., 144 Westminster Street, Providence, RI.

MEMBERS PRESENT
Michael M. Tikoian, Chair  
Paul E. Lemont, Vice Chair
David Abedon
Bruce Dawson                           

STAFF PRESENT
Grover Fugate, CRMC Executive Director
Jeff Willis, Deputy Director
Laura Ricketson, Public Education & Outreach Coordinator
Brian Goldman, Legal Counsel

Call to Order. Mr. Tikoian called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m.

Mr. Tikoian made 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.

Mr. Tikoian made a statement as to why the subcommittee meetings are held at his offices, Piccerilli Gilstein & Company.  Mr. Tikoian stated that the meetings are held at Piccerilli Gilstein & Company to facilitate a number of issues: ease of transition from the previous location (CRMC’s Providence office at 40 Fountain Street) which had to be changed because the Council’s downtown office was closed due to budget cuts; accommodation of subcommittee members whose work locations and/or residences are in or near to Providence; and, it’s cost to the agency: free.  Mr. Lemont reiterated the fact that the accommodation of members is a key issue for participation in any work of the Council; and, the wear and tear on personal vehicles is high enough and that by holding the meetings in Providence, costs can be kept to a minimum.  Also, Mr. Lemont wanted the record to reflect that the Chairman should be congratulated for letting the subcommittee use his company’s office space for these meetings because it addresses the many concerns raised above.

The Chair opened the meeting by asking the members if there were any questions concerning the minutes of the previous meeting. Hearing none, Mr. Tikoian requested a motion to approve the subcommittee’s August 1, 2006 meeting minutes.

Mr. Abedon, seconded by Mr. Lemont, moved to approve the August 1, 2006 meeting minutes. All voted in favor of the motion to approve.

Item 4.A – Management Procedures/Section 4.3.2(t) Schedule of Fees – CAD disposal.   G. Fugate explained that this proposed change is being made to bring the Council’s CAD cell disposal fee in line with the actual charge to users.  From the initial use of the CAD cells when associated with the ACOE’s Providence River Dredging Project, a disposal fee was charged to each user by the ACOE and the state (through the Council).  In total that fee was $11.65 ($10.90 went to the ACOE, and $0.75 went to the Council).  Now that the Council is the owner/manager of the CAD cells with no federal involvement, the $11.65 fee needs to be reflected in the Council’s fee schedule.

Mr. Lemont, seconded by Mr. Abedon and Mr. Dawson, moved to approve the proposed change. All voted in favor of the motion to approve.

Item 4.B – Management Procedures/Section 5.12 Permit Extensions.   G. Fugate explained that the proposed changes are reflective of the Chairman’s vision in implementing the MRDP for, in this case, how the Council should handle permit extension requests.  The proposed revisions allow the Executive Director to review and issue said requests administratively up to three times for one year each time, with a fourth and final allowance for such to be handled by the full Council.

Mr. Tikoian asked how these requests/approvals will be tracked.  J. Willis explained that the agency’s database is setup to handle this and that clerical staff will revise their applicant correspondence templates to reflect how many extensions an application has had.  This will give both the agency and the applicant a clearly understood statement as to how many extension have been issued.  Mr. Tikoian also asked if an extension request can be heard by the full Council prior to a fourth request being made.  B. Goldman stated that the existing language of this section allows for that to happen.

Mr. Lemont, seconded by Mr. Abedon, moved to approve the proposed change. All voted in favor of the motion to approve.

Item 4.C – Redbook/Section 110 Applications for Category A and Category B Assents.   G. Fugate explained that the proposed changes are reflective of the Chairman’s vision in implementing the MRDP for, in this case, how the agency can better handle the administrative review of a set of applications previously handled by the full council.  The proposed revisions would allow for the administrative review of activities when under a specified threshold.

Mr. Lemont stated that while he is supportive of this change, he feels that the Council should be able to ratify such administrative decisions.  Mr. Dawson agreed stating that this change, while worthwhile, is new and significant and therefore would benefit from Council involvement.  G. Fugate and B. Goldman asked if a ratification was required, would that hold up the issuance of the Assent?  Mr. Lemont felt that yes, this would be the intent of the ratification.  Mr. Tikoian stated that while he understood the position of both Mr. Lemont and Mr. Dawson, he felt that holding any issuance of such assents is contrary to the intent of this change, and would possibly result in some assents not being issued for weeks while awaiting ratification. 

G. Fugate recommended that staff could provide the Council with a list of all pending applications, similar to what is done now with Category A’s, that the Council could receive in its semi-monthly agenda packages.  Mr. Tikoian thought that this would address the issue and asked G. Fugate to break-down the list into pending Category A’s and those applications that will now be handled administratively.  Mr. Tikoian asked G. Fugate to also provide a brief project description along with the basic application data.

The subcommittee discussed the proposed changes, specifically the activities to be handled administratively and their associated thresholds.  After discussion, the subcommittee decided to approve the list as presented, but eliminating marinas from that list.  At B. Goldman’s suggestion, the subcommittee revised proposed language from the original proposal that spoke to how these activities would be handled at the administrative level.

Mr. Lemont, seconded by Mr. Abedon, moved to approve the proposed change as modified by the subcommittee. All voted in favor of the motion to approve.

Item 4.D – Redbook/Section 200.6 Type 6 Waters.   G. Fugate explained that in developing the UCG for the Metro Bay area, there may be instances of shoreline development that are adjacent to Type 6 waters, which main policy statement is to prohibit all uses which detract from the primary purposes of said waters, that being industrial & commercial waterfronts.  As the UCG recognizes redevelopment of the urban shoreline, Type 6 waters may not be the best water type for this area.  G. Fugate and staff are developing proposed revisions to this water type in the Metro Bay area and will report back potential water type changes to the subcommittee at a future meeting.

Item 5.A – Lease Fees for Usage of Submerged Lands.   G. Fugate explained that the Council will soon be in need of setting lease fees for activities such as lighthouse ownership, as the GSA is actively selling these properties to private parties.  G. Fugate presented how the DEM Division of Parks handles the leasing of state marine property as a possible model for the Council to consider.  B. Goldman expressed that the establishment of such fees resides with the legislature.  Mr. Lemont felt that the Council should use its aquaculture lease fees ($150) as a model and reassess the need for a different model at a later date.

J. Willis offered a concern that such activities, soon to be in private ownership yet residing on public property, may need to be maintained over time in a good working condition and that the Council should consider requiring these activities to post performance bonds.

Mr. Lemont, seconded by Mr. Dawson, moved to require that lighthouse lease fees be $150 annual, and that each such lease contain a requirement to post an adequate performance bond for maintenance purposes associated with the structure. All voted in favor of the motion to approve.

ADJOURNMENT. Mr. Lemont, seconded by Mr. Dawson and Mr. Abedon, moved to adjourn. All voted in favor of the motion, and the meeting was adjourned at 6:20 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by

Jeffrey M. Willis

Deputy Director

 

CALENDAR INDEX