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 Wednesday, April 25, 2007 at 4:00 p.m. at Piccerelli Gilstein & Co., 144 Westminster Street, Providence, RI.

MEMBERS PRESENT

Michael M. Tikoian, Chair
Paul E. Lemont, Vice Chair
Bruce Dawson
Donald Gomez
Russ Chateauneuf, DEM

STAFF PRESENT

Grover Fugate, CRMC Executive Director
Jeff Willis, Deputy Director
Jim Boyd, Coastal Policy Analyst
Brian Goldman, Legal Counsel

Call to Order. Mr. Tikoian called the meeting to order at 4:12 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 February 22, 2007 meeting minutes.

Mr. Dawson, seconded by Mr. Gomez, moved to approve the February 22, 2007 meeting minutes. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote, with Mr. Chateauneuf abstaining.

Item 3.A – Salt Pond Region and Narrow River SAMPs – Land Use Classifications; Section 920 Revisions. J. Boyd introduced the issues of various technical changes being proposed to these SAMPs regarding the removal of outdated text and to make sections consistent with current status of nitrogen removal systems under DEM ISDS regulations; to reference the CRMC freshwater wetland rules, where applicable; to add correct date reflecting adoption of modified density requirements; to remove outdated text, because the availability of numerous nitrogen removal systems negates the need to provide relief for the requirement (additionally, DEM ISDS does not have any pending subdivision suitability applications prior to April 1999.);
and, to correct for a coding error in the GIS shape file that changed a polygon from LDBCC, as filed with the Secretary of State (SOS) in 1999, to Self-sustaining, when refiled with the SOS in 2006.

J. Willis added that while these proposed revisions are considered technical revisions and not subject to formal rule-making, in keeping with subcommittee practice, staff asked the subcommittee to begin rule-making on these due to the number of changes being proposed.

Mr. Dawson, seconded by Mr. Gomez, moved to approved the proposed changes as written. All voted in favor of the motion.

Item 4.A – Urban Coastal Greenway Revisions. G. Fugate and J. Boyd presented the issues behind the proposed changes in that staff is proposing to address some minor and technical revisions; to address phased project reviews; and, to address requirements for public access and structural shoreline protection.

The subcommittee discussed the issue. Mr. Gomez asked if parking is a consideration in the regulations. G. Fugate stated that it is. G. Fugate also explained how the regulations will address phased requirements. The subcommittee agreed with staff assessments overall but revised the language for the proposed UCG Section 150.5(j) revision as follows:

Add new UCG Section 150.5(j)

(j) In order to facilitate public access to the shoreline and promote passive recreational uses of the
waterways, and where appropriate based on site conditions, each project with a UCG must provide a minimum of one public access point that leads directly to the water in the form of a stabilized path or steps, canoe/kayak ramp, overlook, or other access method. In some cases, Where appropriate, given the discretion of the executive director, this requirement may be satisfied if the UCG public access path directly abuts the shoreline feature. Applicants should consult with CRMC staff concerning the type and design of direct shoreline access methods

Mr. Dawson, seconded by Mr. Gomez, moved to approved the proposed changes as written and revised above. All voted in favor of the motion.

Item 4.B – Application of Urban Coastal Greenways outside of the Metro Bay area. G. Fugate explained how well the UGC has been received and that given certain areas of the coastal zone, its use could be applied there. G. Fugate explained that staff was directed to cite such areas and come to agreement on the boundaries of each for this proposal. G. Fugate explained how this would work. Should the subcommittee agree, staff will proceed to meet with municipal planners where the UCG would also be applied to explain the issue, the p[process and seek additional input relative to each towns concerns. Mr. Tikoian asked what criteria staff used to choose these areas. G. Fugate explained that each area needed to show similar characteristics of the areas currently under jurisdiction in the UCG policies. Mr. Gomez clarified how the UCG would work outside the Metro Bay region. Mr. Tikoian emphasized that should the subcommittee agree with this proposal, then staff would commence to meet with the local planners, process all municipal concerns by making whatever revisions staff felt were necessary to implement this proposal, then bring it back to the subcommittee for final approval prior to undertaking rule-making.

Mr. Chateauneuf, seconded by Mr. Dawson, moved to direct staff to take this proposal to the
municipalities where the UCG has been identified by staff to be applied, and present the issues to each municipality in order to develop the application of using the UCG outside the Metro Bay area, and to bring back a final version of this proposal for subcommittee consideration. All voted in favor of the motion.

Item 4.C – Watch Hill Quadrangle/Water Type Revision. G. Fugate explained that the Council has received a Town of Westerly resolution seeking that certain waters off of shore of Watch Hill be revised from Type 1 to Type 2. Reasons given by the town were to better allow shorefront owners the ability to prepare for storm events, because if structures in place now were destroyed 50% or more, the program would consider any rebuilding of such as a new structure, which would not be allowed in Type 1 waters. G. Fugate explained liquefaction relative to seawalls and revetments and that maintenance of existing structures are encouraged. Mr. Lemont and Mr. Tikoian stated that if the designation is Type 1 now, to revise to a water type where more activities are allowed seems to be contrary as to why the waters were designated as Type 1 in the first place. Additionally, should there become problems as a result of a catastrophic storm, our imminent peril regulations can address them. Mr. Chateauneuf asked if a change were to be made, could specific seaward limits of the boundary be made, such as in this instance, 10 feet?

Mr. Lemont, seconded by Mr. Dawson, moved to have prepare a report relative to the Town of Westerly request, with recommendations, and bring back to the subcommittee for discussion.. All voted in favor of the motion.

Item 4.D – Section 310 – Alterations to Freshwater Flows to Tidal Waters and Water Bodies and Coastal Ponds. J. Boyd explained that the proposed changes are to better strengthen the program in regard to other activities that could alter freshwater flows.

Mr. Lemont, seconded by Mr. Chateauneuf, moved to approved the proposed changes as written. All voted in favor of the motion.

Item 4.E – Filling of Tidal Waters. G. Fugate presented that filling of tidal waters triggers a lease requirement under the program, however, when for the maintenance of bulkheads where sheet piling is being driven upagainst an existing structure, a lease has not been required due to the fact that the machinery performing the work can not get any closer to the existing structure than approximately one foot (however, staff is recording the initial footprint in case additional and similar maintenance occurs years on that may trigger a lease due to incremental filling). G. Fugate asked the subcommittee if this same principle should apply to riprap revetments that are being proposed to be maintained in the same footprint but using sheet piling at the toe and back-filling behind the sheet piling, or should there be a lease applied. The subcommittee discussed the issue and felt that this type of maintenance is similar to the bulkhead/sheet pile work.

Mr. Gomez, seconded by Mr. Lemont, moved to allow the executive director to execute a lease when any such type of filling is greater than 12 inches. All voted in favor of the motion.

Item 5.A – Staff Report Recommendations. Chairman Tikoian asked that this item not be discussed at this time because Director Sullivan was not present. Hearing no objections, the Chairman directed staff to reschedule this item for the next meeting.

ADJOURNMENT. Mr. Lemont, seconded by Mr. Dawson, moved to adjourn. All voted in favor of the motion, and the meeting was adjourned at 5:14 p.m.

Respectfully submitted by
Jeffrey M. Willis
Deputy Director

CALENDAR INDEX