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, November 21, 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
Dave Abedon
Bruce Dawson
Russ Chateauneuf, DEM

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

Mr. Tikoian called the meeting to order at 5:25 p.m.

Hearing no objection, Mr. Tikoian asked the subcommittee to dispense with the reading of the usual opening statements, but to have them reflected within the record nonetheless:

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.

Mr. Tikoian asked 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 October 17, 2006 meeting minutes.

Mr. Lemont, seconded by Mr. Abedon, moved to approve the October 17, 2006 meeting minutes. All voted in favor of the motion.

Item 4.A — Management Procedures/Section 2 Meetings. J. Willis explained that this item was back in front of the subcommittee due to direction given from the subcommittee at the last meeting. Mr. Tikoian re-introduced and explained his issues with council members not attending meetings so as to maintain a quorum. Mr. Tikoian noted that these potential revisions were prompted by DEM Director Sullivan as a possible way to address the issue.

J. Willis explained the proposed changes that staff developed based on the direction from the subcommittee previously, first that of the meeting schedule. B. Goldman commented that an additional phrase could be added to the end of the first paragraph that speaks to meetings being held at the call of the Chairman or in his/her absence the vice chair. After discussion, the subcommittee did not feel the need to add this statement as the proposed language in their collective feelings, addresses the issue.

J. Willis then explained the new language that addresses unexcused absences. After discussion, the subcommittee further revised the proposed language to replace the phrase "In a 12 month period" with "In any 12 month period" and remove the phrase "beginning in February".

Mr. Lemont, seconded by Mr. Dawson, moved to approve the proposed changes as revised by the subcommittee. All voted in favor of the motion.

Item 4.B — Section 300.11 - Aquaculture. J. Willis explained that the agency's aquaculture coordinator has proposed changes within this section of the program to make clearer when the regulations are referring to marine aquaculture activities. The proposed changes seek to add the phrase "within tidal waters" as appropriate, as some marine aquaculture could be land-based.

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

Item 4.C — Salt Pond and Narrow River SAMPs: Subdivisions and Open Space Lots. J. Boyd presented the issue of subdivisions within the aforementioned SAMPs that are proposed for five (or less) buildable lots but actually include six or more subdivided lots, thereby triggering agency jurisdiction and its density requirements. At issue is the fact that some of the lots so subdivided are to be used for stormwater or open space purposes, and not for residential building purposes. Additionally, municipalities with these SAMP towns are requiring that in some instances open space lots be mandatory to meet their regulatory requirements. When the municipal jurisdiction requires open space lots (and/or stormwater lots) and the CRMC requires its density provisions be adhered to, the subdivision is caught between two competing requirements, and for subdivisions of less than five units, the requirement to meet density provisions could reduce the buildable lots to one or two. The municipalities do not feel that this result is beneficial and detracts from their efforts to secure open space within development projects.

Staff also presented various land use planning issues and tools that municipalities and planning agencies use to address current growth issues, such as the state's 2025 Land Use Plan; Conservation and Inclusionary Zoning; and DEM's rules for ISDS that attempt to understand the dynamics of growth.

Staff suggests that open space lots are a good requirement to have but as written the SAMP regulations do not recognize them, and therefore once six or more lots are proposed to be subdivided, the density requirements are invoked. J. Boyd then explained that he has setup meetings with the municipal planners to discuss these issues and work with them to resolve how the agency's SAMP regulations can meld with the municipal requirements for open space issues, such that both jurisdictions can benefit.

Mr. Tikoian expressed that he is comfortable with this direction. Mr. Dawson made similar statements and especially appreciated the effort to work with the municipalities in developing these requirements. Mr. Lemont and B. Goldman both want any policy development to be clear that if a lot(s) is subdivided for open space purposes that it stays as open space in perpetuity.

G. Fugate explained that such a policy development would maintain jurisdiction but not necessarily invoke density requirements.

Mr. Tikoian wanted the record to reflect that this work is not a response to the affordable housing issue in Charlestown.

Item 4.D — Greenwich Bay SAMP: Section 910: Coastal Buffer Zones. G. Fugate explained that within this section of the SAMP, an unintentional consequence is that a special exception is invoked for when existing structures expand more than 50% of their current footprint and the buffer zone requirement cannot be provided. An example presented was for when an existing structure is located very close to the coastal feature (eg: closer than 25 feet) and an addition of greater than 50% is proposed to be added to the street-side of the existing structure. According to the SAMP, this proposed addition invokes the buffer zone requirement for the lot coverage and could demand a buffer of 25 or more feet, which puts the buffer into the foundation of the structure. Because the inclusion of the buffer couldn't be met, the proposed activity becomes prohibited (Section 910.3).

G. Fugate explained his position on the significance of the special exception as a coastal zone management tool and that it should be used when the program absolutely addresses the consequences of the activity's actions relative to programmatic goals and objections, and that given the example he presented, the use of the special exception within this regulation doesn't rise to that level. G. Fugate expressed that this issue should be more along the lines of requiring a variance. B. Goldman offered that language could be drafted that spoke to buffer zones and development that is proposed seaward of a structure. G. Fugate stated that this policy discussion is a good one for the Implementation Team of the Greenwich Bay SAMP, currently being formed. The subcommittee agreed and staff will pursue this issue with the GBIT.

ADJOURNMENT. Mr. Abedon, seconded by Mr. Dawson, moved to adjourn. All voted in favor of the motion, and the meeting was adjourned at 6:17 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by

Jeffrey M. Willis
Deputy Director

CALENDAR INDEX