Skip to ContentSitemap

YouTubeFacebookTwittereNewsletter SignUp

CRMC Logo

RI Coastal Resources Management Council

...to 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, October 24, 2006 at 6:00 PM at the Narragansett Bay Commission Boardroom – One Service Road, Providence, RI.

MEMBERS
Mike Tikoian, Chair
Paul Lemont, Vice Chair
Ray Coia
Jerry Sahagian
Joe Shekarchi
Dave Abedon
Bruce Dawson
Neill Gray
Ron Gagnon, DEM
Tom Ricci

STAFF PRESENT
Grover Fugate, CRMC Executive Director
Ken Anderson, CRMC Senior Engineer
John Longo, Deputy Legal Council

1. Chair Tikoian called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.

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

2. READING OF THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING:

Mr. Coia, seconded by Vice Chair Lemont moved approval of the minutes of the October 10th meeting. The motion was carried on a unanimous voice vote.

3. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS

Vice Chair Lemont reported that the Rights-of-Way Subcommittee met back in April
2005 on a number of potential rights-of-way in Warwick and that a number of potential
rights-of-ways were considered but most were scrapped as not being usable because
they have a cliff at the end of them or some such problem. Vice Chair Lemont said the
subcommittee recommended that Bradford Avenue be declared a public right-of-way
and that Alger Avenue and John Woods Avenue be declared a public right-of way. Vice
Chair Lemont requested that they be received and put out on a subsequent docket.
There were no subcommittee reports.

4. STAFF REPORTS

Mr. Fugate reported that there had been a number of inquiries in the State regarding the
number of marinas, how many boat slips, how many moorings there area but nobody
had a handle on this. Mr. Fugate said all the permitting and policy people together with
large-scale aerial photographs taken by Dan Goulet and Willie this summer when
marinas were at their maximum capacity. Mr. Fugate stated that the photographs gave
accurate accounts and they were able to locate every marina in the state which included
all the small boat marinas which are typically in coastal ponds and all the major
marinas. Mr. Fugate said the old numbers for marinas was around 70 marinas and we
now have close to 200 marinas in the state. Mr. Fugate said they have to go back now
and count the number of slips which will be significant. Mr. Fugate said they now have a
handle on that for permitting purposes at least and able to know what the actual marina
situation is in the state. Mr. Abedon felt it was good to know the marina count. There
were no staff reports.

Mr. Shekarchi arrived at 6:20 p.m.

5. POLICY DISCUSSSIONS – PRESENTATION ON SETBACKS AND BUFFERS

Mr. Fugate said last week they dealt with the urban area and issues very specific to the
urban area when it comes to buffers and setbacks. Mr. Fugate stated that the other
areas which have proved to be problematic are very dense suburban areas in the state –
areas like Warwick, Bristol, and Warren where the lots are very dense. Mr. Fugate said
they have a significant issue with buffers there both trying to get them in place and then
trying to maintain them. Mr. Fugate noted that 9 out of 10 matters before a hearing
officer are going to be buffered related and there is significant enforcement issues
associated with buffers and a lot of it comes from suburban areas where people want to
be able to view and see the water. Mr. Fugate said they are trying to rethink the whole
suburban buffer program and look at what the values are, how they can maximize those
values and get homeowners to better appreciate their land and views. Marion Gold,
Director of the Extension Center at URI, stated that they started working with Mr. Fugate
about a year and a half ago when CRMC sponsored the coastal buffer zone policy
workshop and invited her to give a presentation. Ms. Gold said at the center they do a
number of outreach programs which involve working with residential land use. Ms. Gold
said most people like to have beautiful landscape and like to garden. She said they will
go in and educate people about gardening practices in such a way that they can make
their landscape look beautiful and protect the environment. Ms. Gold said their
programs are vertically integrated from research to outreach and deal with many
different audiences. Ms. Gold said the whole issue of how they can have a landscape
that meets their aesthetic goals from the homeowner's standpoint and from the green
industry standpoint they have an economic stake in how the land is managed and at the
same time deal with water supply, water quality and waste management issues. Caitlyn
Chafee passed out a handout to council members which summarized what they have
been working on. Ms. Chafee said they have been working with CRMC on new
approaches to coastal buffer zone regulations that maximize buffer zone functions while
presenting property owners with an expanded set of options. Ms. Chafee said as with
the Metro Bay SAMP they hoped that the creation of these options would reduce the
number of variances requested to the CRMC and hoped to streamline the permitting
process. Ms. Chafee said they are in the early stages of developing a suburban buffer
zone option within the Greenwich Bay SAMP that will be like the urban coastal greenway
option with the Metro Bay SAMP and added to existing buffer zone regulations to create
two different set of options to meet regulatory options. Ms. Chafee said they hope that
these regulations will emphasize the use of low impact development or LID practices for
controlling storm water runoff. She said they would like to emphasize maximizing
landscape habitat value, the use of sustainable landscape design, installation and
maintenance practices that minimize environmental adverse impact. Ms. Chafee said a
working group with members from URI, CRMC, the National Resources Conservation
Service, Save the Bay and the City of Warwick Planning Department began meeting in
January 2006 to discuss these regulatory changes and review research on LID practices
to determine which are the most appropriate for urban settings. Ms. Chafee said other
project components, which have been completed, are the development and delivery of a
training series for CRMC on managed landscapes which focus on sustainable landscape
design and maintenance practices. Ms. Chafee said the topics included invasive plant
management, integrated test management and incorporating small scale or LID storm
water practices into landscape. Ms. Chafee said they have done consultations with
individual landowners, landscape architects and the URI Department of Landscape
Architecture. She said their faculty has developed draft landscape plans for existing
applications using the types of concepts they hope to promote in the revised buffer zone
regulations which have been submitted to CRMC. She said they have also done an
installation of a demolition salt marsh and buffer restoration project at Warwick Neck in
Warwick. Ms. Chafee said they have planned the development of a design manual that
will provide guidance for creating coastal landscape plan and incorporating LID practices
into landscape design. Ms. Chafee said they are also developing a vetted coastal plant
list that includes native coastal species, as well as nonnative and noninvasive species.
Ms. Chafee said this winter they are planning training and certification program for
landscape professionals who are working in coastal areas and this program will help
with LID landscape design. She said the program would be mandatory for any person
submitting a landscape plan in a coastal buffer zone area which will target landscape
architects, installers and landscape maintenance companies. Chair Tikoian asked how
they were going to bring in landscape architects and engineers so when they submit a
plan they don't go back and forth with staff. Ms. Chafee said that this was the idea of the
program. Mr. Fugate explained that they are finding that people submitting the plans do
not have the training or understanding in these areas to present a decent set of plans.
Mr. Fugate said they want to train them upfront as to what is appropriate and what there
options are. Mr. Fugate said they would have to have certification for this which would
be run through URI. Mr. Abedon asked if this was a law or regulation. Mr. Fugate
replied a regulation. Chair Tikoian asked if this was something like DEM has with septic
installers. Mr. Fugate replied yes and Ms. Chafee said that was their model. Chair
Tikoian asked where it stood now and if it was part of UCG. Mr. Fugate said the plant
list is part of the UCG that Ms. Chafee has been working on so they have a wider
selection of plants that people can use other than just native species. Chair Tikoian
asked how they were going to implement this and if this was a regulation change. Mr.
Fugate said it would require a regulation change to the SAMP which will ultimately be in
the Red Book. Chair Tikoian said the certification was in the SAMP. Mr. Fugate replied
no, the regulation changes have not been prepared yet. Mr. Fugate explained that they
are trying to get the manual and training down to make sure they understand what they
are going to get from applicants and the people who are preparing the plans. Mr. Fugate
said then they will start to draft the regulation change. Chair Tikoian asked how long this
would take. Mr. Fugate replied within 6 months. Ms. Gold said they are going ahead
and will run the training with the idea that it will become mandatory. Mr. Abedon said it
seemed like the marketplace will drive some of this. Ms. Chafee replied absolutely. Mr.
Gagnon asked if the landscaping plan and training included wetland buffers and what
might be there. Mr. Fugate said it is coastal water now but does not mean that
something wouldn't be expanded into the freshwater system. Mr. Gagnon said it might
help DEM. Ms. Gold gave some examples of what they have been doing regarding
landscaping for private landowners and the Warwick Neck habitat restoration. Chair
Tikoian said there have been measurable results. Ms. Chafee said yes. Mr.
Abedon said he believed Laura Myers was working with the policy people on an invasive
species plan and asked if they had discussions with her. Mr. Fugate replied yes she is
working with Ken Cute. Chair Tikoian said one of the big issues is that people want to
reduce their buffer zones and it’s got to the point where you can raise the gap, educate
them and their landscape architects. Ms. Chafee gave an example of how they helped a
woman in East Providence with her landscaping. Ms. Chafee said that the landscape
community realizes that this educational training is beneficial to them and their clients.
Ms. Chafee said there is an interest in the landscape architecture department at URI in
putting this into their curriculum. Mr. Fugate noted that they have been talking
about coastal specialization in some of their stuff and this will provide a niche for them
that does not exist. Chair Tikoian asked if this started in high school. Ms. Gold replied
they start this in elementary school. Mr. Fugate also said that council members would
notice that this project appeared in their 312 evaluation because Washington was very
excited about it because it was one of the things that no other state had at the present
time and they would be a national model in this area if they can get this to work. Mr.
Caito, a civil engineer, stated that as an engineer he would be interested in this training
and felt that it should be promoted to the engineering professional as well so they have
an understanding of what the requirements are and what the ultimate goals are. Ms.
Gold said their landscape architects are already taking about starting a master's
program for landscape architects who would like to specialize in coastal land
management. Chair Tikoian thanked Ms. Gold and Ms. Chafee for their presentations.

Chair Tikoian called for a recess at 6:48 p.m. Chair Tikoian called the meeting
back to order at 6:53 p.m.

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

7. CONTINUANCES:

1990-10-040 PAUL & CATHERINE NEVILLE (originally Water Street Realty Trust) –
Applicant requesting 2nd Full Council approval extension. Project location of plat 21, lot
4; Sakonnet Estates, Portsmouth, RI.

The applicants were not present. Chair Tikoian noted that this was the second time on
the agenda. Mr. Coia asked if the applicants had called to say they were not coming.
Chair Tikoian suggested Mr. Fugate send them a registered letter and inform them that
there are no more extensions.

1973-08-015 NANCY GILBANE – To alter the design of the floating dockage at an
existing residential boating facility. As initially permitted in 1994 the floating dock
consisted of a 200 square foot (20’ x 10’) float that extended 35 +/- feet seaward of the
fixed pier. In 2004 the design was modified to allow the use of a 33’ x 4’ access float
which extended 40 +/- feet seaward of the fixed pier and which was used to access a 20’
x 6’ float and a 20’ x 4’ float (total SF 200 SF). The applicant now seeks permission to
alter the float design as shown on the attached plans. The design calls for the
installation of two 20’ x 5’ floating docks and a 26’ x 6’ float for a total terminal float SF of
356 SF. The new float arrangement will extend 40’ +/- feet seaward of the fixed pier and
75’ +/- beyond MLW. The proposed design is variant to RICRMP Standard 300.4.E.3.d
by 206 square feet. Project location: plat 26, lot 20; 140 Adams Point Road, Barrington, RI.

The applicant was not present. Chair Tikoian stated that the applicant had requested a
continuance on the application and it was submitted at the proper time within the 24-hour
rule period. The application was continued.

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

2004-11-064 BEACHFRTON, LLC – Construct an 8,600 square foot, 18 room, hotel;
associated storm-water management; and landscaping. The hotel is proposed to be
elevated above the 100-year flood zone elevation. The hotel will be serviced by
municipal water and sewer system. Located at Plat 116NW, Lots 11, 12; 1 Wave
Avenue/Second Beach, Middletown, RI.

Doug Cohen, the applicant was present. John Caito, the applicant’s engineer was
present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Anderson gave council members a brief
summary on the application. Mr. Anderson stated that the application was for a hotel
developed on a barrier beach in Middletown on Easton’s Pond which is currently a
paved parking area. Mr. Anderson stated that it would have sewers and town waters.
Mr. Anderson said the application meets the CRMC setback and buffer requirements.
Mr. Anderson explained that the application is also under the freshwater wetland
program because there is a small stream along the dike that borders Easton’s Pond and
the development is within the jurisdictional setback of the freshwater wetland. Mr.
Anderson said the applicant satisfactorily met the burdens of avoidance under the
freshwater wetland regulation and staff had no objection to the application. Mr.
Anderson said no variances were required but required Category B review for a
commercial structure on a developed barrier beach. Chair Tikoian asked if there are no
variances or special exceptions why staff did not say they recommended approval
instead of saying no objection. Chair Tikoian asked if these were the same words. Mr.
Anderson replied that no objection is recommending approval. Mr. Gray asked about
there not being any comment from the Town of Middletown on the application. Mr.
Anderson said the application went through the standard course of advertisement and
no comment was received. Mr. Sahagian seconded by Mr. Gray moved approval of the
application with all staff stipulations. Chair Tikoian asked the Executive Director in the
future to have some consistency if staff has no objection does that mean approval. Mr.
Fugate replied that there is a memo out to staff to standardize all the staff responses so
that the council will know what it means in certain circumstances. The motion was
carried on a unanimous voice vote.

9. PUBLIC HEARING ON CHANGES TO THE RHODE ISLAND COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND MANAGEMENT

1. Add New Section 300.14.B.9 Standards
2. Add Section 210.7 (Dunes): within the 50 Foot Dune Setback Zone

Chair Tikoian opened the public hearing on Section 210.7 Dunes and Section
300.14.B.9. Wendy Waller, Save the Bay, stated that they were strongly opposed to
changes to Section 210.7 and the table. Ms Waller said they felt that allowing any home
to be rebuilt within the 50-foot dune setback was a significant loosening of the current
regulations with no environmental benefits. Ms. Waller said this policy would be going
backwards and inconsistent with the Red Book goals. Ms. Waller said the roles and
functions of dunes and barriers are to protect. Ms. Waller felt this was a very important
area were alternatives and consequences need to be evaluated carefully. Ms. Waller
requested that the council not approve this policy change. Mr. Fugate explained the
proposed change. Mr. Fugate said in a perfect world you should not be able to build in
these areas but that there are many situations where people have no place to relocate
their structures. Mr. Fugate said this would be denying them any type of maintenance
and saying they would not be allowed to maintain their structures and they would
gradually go into disrepair and then disappear. Mr. Fugate said many people would like
to bring their structures up to FEMA compliance which would require complete rebuilding
of the structure in place but not expanding the footprint. Mr. Fugate noted that the table
has been in place for approximately 8 years at the staff level and its what staff uses in
maintenance situations. Mr. Fugate said if you look at Section 300.14 that is why they
are amending this section. Mr. Fugate also said many of the structures predate the
council. Mr. Fugate explained that it is a discretionary call on his part as to what is
allowed and they put this table together to get a standardized approach. Mr. Fugate
stated that staff has been working off of this table for the last 8 years and the problem is
that it never was out in the public. Mr. Fugate explained that the public did not know
what they could and could not do and they were trying to get this out into the public for
their viewing and use. Mr. Fugate said this would not allow expansion of structures.
Chair Tikoian said he was saying that this does not weaken the program and allow you
to build new structures but if someone had an existing structure and wanted to update it
to be in compliance with the FEMA regulations this would allow them to do so. Chair
Tikoian asked if Save the Bay was opposed to allowing them to be in compliance
otherwise they would have to destroy their home and the state was going to have to buy
the property. Ms. Waller said this regulation also stated that if a house is destroyed
more than 50% they could rebuild there and that is what their problem is. Mr. Shekarchi
felt that people have property rights to their home. Mr. Shekarchi said if an act of nature
happens they should be allowed to rebuild and there is a clear Supreme Court precedent
that they have a right to rebuild if an act of God happens. Ms. Waller agreed but felt it
would cause some major compensation conflicts and that a lot has happened in 8 years.
Mr. Fugate said he understood where Wendy was coming from and felt that they needed
to clarify “rebuild in kind”. Mr. Fugate explained that rebuild in kind meant they had an
existing structure and they could bring it in compliance with FEMA. Mr. Fugate said
many times they have to re-elevate the structure which means putting in a new
foundation taking the house down but this was an existing structure. Mr. Fugate said
this was not intended in post-storm situations. Mr. Abedon asked how do you know that.
Mr. Fugate replied that they have to specify that the rebuild in kind is a pre-existing
structure and not one that had been destroyed by a storm. Mr. Fugate said they need to
develop language to clarify this. Mr. Gray said the table had nothing to do with
rebuilding something that got damaged in a storm. Mr. Fugate replied that is correct.
Mr. Gray said this was just him saying that he wanted to work on his home and this was
the clarification of it. Mr. Fugate replied right. Mr. Shekarchi asked if this came out of
policy and planning. Chair Tikoian replied that it came out of staff. There was no further
public comment. Chair Tikoian closed the public hearing. Mr. Gray had a question on
additions on moderately developed and undeveloped but there was no response and
said he would have thought this was not allowed. Mr. Fugate said revisions are not
prohibited. Mr. Fugate said they do not typically find houses on moderately or
undeveloped so this would define residential structures. Mr. Gray said they were saying
that they would not have them there to begin with. Mr. Fugate replied yes. Chair
Tikoian wanted to clear up Ms. Waller’s comment that she felt this program change
would make their program weaker and wanted to make sure the record was clear on
this. Chair Tikoian said he had assurances that this did not make the program weaker
and asked her to explain what she meant by this would make the program weaker. Ms.
Waller felt that by allowing any house to be rebuilt within the area and that under the
current regulations if they wanted to do this they would not be allowed to.
Ms. Waller said they felt this was creating a lessening of the strength there if they were
allowed to rebuild. Mr. Fugate said if you read Section 300.17 on dunes most of these
structures predate the council and it is at the discretion of the executive director whether
they qualify for maintenance and not applying to expand the structure but were
upgrading to meet all current codes and they considered that a maintenance activity.
Mr. Fugate said they might be able to survive a storm if they could elevate the structure
and that was why they were allowing these activities. Ms. Waller said if it was going to
be called maintenance than it is allowed. Paul Ryan requested that they put more detail
in the note so that it is clear in the table. Chair Tikoian suggested that since there was
some confusion on rebuild that they put this off for two weeks and give the executive
director an opportunity to clarify this so everyone is on the same page. Chair Tikoian
closed the public hearing and continued it until Mr. Fugate had an opportunity to have
the language cleared up.

10. Enforcement Report – September, 2006

11. Category “A” List

There were none held.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:06 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,
Grover Fugate, Executive Director

Reported by Lori A. Field

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