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, February 19, 2008 at 5:00 p.m. at Piccerelli Gilstein & Co., 144Westminster Street, Providence, RI.

MEMBERS PRESENT
Michael M. Tikoian, Chair
Paul E. Lemont, Vice Chair
Bruce Dawson
Russ Chateauneuf, DEM representative

STAFF PRESENT
Grover Fugate, CRMC Executive Director
James Boyd, Coastal Policy Analyst
Brian Goldman, Legal Counsel

OTHER ATTENDEES
Wendy Waller, Save The Bay

 

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

The Chair opened the meeting and requested that the review and approval of the draft January 15 meeting summary be taken up at the next Policy and Procedures Subcommittee meeting, as the Chair was not present at the January 15 meeting, Vice Chair Lemont had not yet arrived, and the only remaining member present on January 15 was Mr. Dawson. All present agreed to move review and approval of the January 15 meeting summary to the next subcommittee meeting on March 15 (Vice Chair Lemont arrived shortly after the decision to postpone review of the meeting summary until the next meeting).

Item 4A – Management Procedures – Section 5.1(3)

G. Fugate explained that the purpose of the proposed amendment was to clarify the procedure for individuals to request notification of pending applications or hearings before the Council. In some cases, individuals had complained that they were not notified of a hearing after they had signed a petition and assumed they would be notified. Mr. Fugate further explained that persons signing petitions are not typically notified because mailing address information is either incomplete or not provided on the petition. The rule change would require that every person seeking notification of an application or hearing must individually submit a written request. Subcommittee members discussed the rule change and suggested a change in text for clarity.

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

Item 4.B – Section 110 – Applications for Category A and Category B Council Assents

G. Fugate explained that upon implementation of the expanded review authority granted by the Council to the Executive Director under this section, the Conservation Law Foundation had requested that a twenty (20) day application processing wait period be implemented upon the filing of staff reports on an application to allow public review of these reports in the file. Mr. Fugate further explained that given this procedure for administrative review that the CLF was suggesting that Category B applications could not be heard before the council until the 20-day period upon filing of staff reports had lapsed. Under normal procedure, however, Category B applications are typically scheduled for review by the Council as soon as staff reports are complete and there is no 20-day wait period. The purpose of the proposed change is to clarify this process.

Chairman Tikoian noted that the purpose of the expanded review authority of the Executive Director under Section 110 is to expedite the processing of administrative permits and recommended that the staff conduct a statistical review of administrative permit processing with the 20-day wait period after a one-year time period to ensure the efficient processing of applications. All present agreed.

Mr. Lemont, seconded by Mr. Dawson, moved to approve the proposed changes with the request to staff to review administrative application processing statistics after a one-year time period and report back to the Council. All voted in favor of the motion to approve.

Item 4.C – Section 300.3 – Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Recreational Structures

Mr. Fugate explained that the purpose of the proposed amendments to this section was to provide more substantive requirements for commercial structures, such as piers, that are constructed in tidal waters. Staff had requested that a Perimeter Limit be included for such structures in tidal waters to define the area of operation and eliminate any inconsistency and standardize requirements for commercial operations in tidal waters. Mr. Fugate noted that commercial structures in tidal waters must be designed by a Rhode Island Registered Professional Engineer and that the Perimeter Limit is generally set approximately ten (10) feet off the in-water structures. He further noted that the Perimeter Limit (PL) cannot interfere with an Army Corps of Engineers or federal designated project. Mr. Lemont asked how a PL would be applied to a commercial structure such as an off-shore wind turbine. Mr. Fugate indicated that staff would likely have to develop a separate PL designation for wind turbines and other off-shore structures. After discussion and recommended language changes the subcommittee remanded the proposed amendments back to staff for editing and that they are brought back before the subcommittee for review and consideration of rule making.

Item 4.D – Section 300.4 – Recreational Boating Facilities

Mr. Fugate explained that the proposed changes would place the onus on the professional engineer for the design of residential docks and to certifying that the structure is built and installed in accordance with the CRMC-approved plans and Assent. The changes also provide more standardized material and construction requirements for residential docks. Mr. Fugate noted that the Class A piling requirement specifies “greenheart” wood piles that are eco-friendly, because they are sustainably harvested and are not treated with CCA chemicals. Mr. Chateauneuf suggested that the Class A pile standard should reference an engineering standard from the appropriate handbook to ensure exact specifications. The subcommittee and Mr. Goldman also discussed several changes to the proposed text for clarity. Additionally, the subcommittee was concerned about docks proposed in high fetch areas and requested staff to develop a map depicting these areas, which meet the definition in Section 300.4.E.3.1. The map would be useful to guide applicants and assist staff and the Council in the review of dock applications.

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

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Dawson, seconded by Mr. Chateauneuf, moved to adjourn the subcommittee meeting. All voted in favor of the motion and the meeting was promptly adjourned at 6:35 p.m.

CALENDAR INDEX