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, May 20, 2008 at Coastal Resources Management Council, Stedman Government Center, 4808 Tower Hill Road, Wakefield, RI.

MEMBERS PRESENT
Michael M. Tikoian, Chair
Don Gomez
Bruce Dawson
W. Michael Sullivan, Director, DEM
Russ Chateauneuf, DEM representative

STAFF PRESENT
Grover Fugate, CRMC Executive Director
Jeff Willis, Deputy Director
Caitlin Chaffee, Coastal Policy Analyst
James Boyd, Coastal Policy Analyst
Laura Ricketson Dwyer, Public Ed/Outreach Coord
John Longo, Legal Counsel

OTHER ATTENDEES
Wendy Waller, Save The Bay

 

Call to Order. Mr. Tikoian called the meeting to order at 8:38 a.m.

The Chair thanked everyone for accommodating the change in venue and time of the meeting and expressed his appreciation for their commitment to the subcommittee.

The Chair opened the meeting and asked for a motion to approve the January 15, 2008 and February 19, 2008 meeting minutes.

Mr. Dawson seconded by Mr. Sullivan moved to approve both sets of meeting minutes. All voted in favor of the motion to approve.

Item4.A – Management Procedures – Section 5.1(3). G. Fugate explained that this revision would clarify which types of applications interested parties could receive notice of.

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

Item 4.B – Management Procedures – Section 5.14. G. Fugate explained that this revision clarifies that once an application has been withdrawn it cannot be requested to be re-instated – in order for the council to re-consider it, an applicant must file the application as if it were new. Mr. Tikoian asked how applicants request a withdrawal. G. Fugate explained that a written request is received to which the Council confirms such in writing. The subcommittee discussed the differences between cancellations and withdrawals.

Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Gomez, moved to approve the proposed changes as presented. All voted in favor of the motion to approve.

Item 4.C – Redbook – Section 300.4.A.19 and D.9 Recreational Boating Facilities and Section 300.16.E.1 Boat and Float Lift Systems. J. Willis explained that these revisions clarify the intended meaning and use of what is currently listed as ‘marine elevator systems’ and how the proposed revisions in both sections and subsections introduce the correct use and meaning of the proper term - marine railway system– throughout each section where applicable.

Mr. Dawson, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, moved to approve the proposed changes of both sections as presented. All voted in favor of the motion to approve.

Item 4.D – Redbook – Section 210.2.B.6 Barrier Islands and Spits and References and Additional Sources of Information. G. Fugate explained that these sections were being presented together. The new finding in 210.6 is to not only be supportive of and consistent with recent revisions to the program’s Climate Change and Sea Level Rise chapter (section 145), but also to better explain the barrier rollover process and how hardened shorelines negate that process. This finding is intended to bolster the prohibition for structural shoreline protection facilities on Type 1 water shorelines. G. Fugate also explained the geologic need to allow a barrier to rollover contrasted against municipal practice to clear existing roads on barriers back to “original” grade, which then provides for homeowners to clear their driveways to that grade, which in turns results in sluiceways for storm surges during storm events, which is not a good thing, as they are actually removing the storm surge platforms, which is the barrier rolling over. Mr. Sullivan offered, and the subcommittee discussed, that this issue - not having municipalities undertake such road clearing activities after storm events – be codified. G. Fugate noted that he will direct staff to draft a letter to the municipalities so affected explaining how this rollover is beneficial and that these storm surge platforms should be left as is after storms so as to allow the barrier to do its job of protection.

Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Dawson, moved to approve the proposed changes of both sections as presented. All voted in favor of the motion to approve.

Item 4.E – Redbook – Section 300.7 Structural Shoreline Protection. G. Fugate explained that the proposed changes are to address the issue where existing structural shoreline protection facilities exist on specific shorelines and that between such structures there are gaps where no such structures exist, then the extension of the existing structures may be allowed under certain conditions.

The subcommittee discussed and offered that the issues of contiguous lots, gap areas, and quantification of extensions should continue to be discussed at a future meeting.

Item 4.F – RICRMP – Greenwich Bay SAMP – Sections 390.7 and 910. J. Boyd and C. Chaffee explained the process and reasoning on developing the proposed changes. Meetings were held with the SAMP’s citizens advisory group and their input resulted in various changes to previous drafts. Meetings were also held with theWarwick Planning Department. M. Tikoian re-iterated that when the SAMP was being developed, the CAC actually wanted stronger buffer zone standards so these revisions, being vetted with them, could actually result in favorable support at the community level. J. Boyd explained biofiltration and land shaping techniques that are inherent in the proposed changes. Existing prohibitions remain but now options are presented to better institute buffer zones. Mr. Sullivan offered that to limit potential runoff at the edge of the property, the revisions also require a standard to address theWQ volume of the original impervious surface area. C. Chaffee explained that the proposed changes attempt to address that by providing options, specifically option 2 in the proposed table. Mr. Sullivan was not fully convinced of the proposed regulations’ ability to limit potential runoff at the edge of the property as discussed. G. Fugate mentioned that the staff is working with the cities to reduceWQ volumes through their implementation of Phase II requirements.

Mr. Tikoian suggested that these proposed regulations should be presented at the local level in a workshop setting prior to beginning rule-making.

Mr. Dawson, seconded by Mr. Gomez, moved to approve the proposed changes and hold a workshop prior to beginning rule-making. All voted in favor of the motion to approve except Mr. Sullivan who voted against.

ADJOURNMENT. Mr. Dawson, seconded by Mr. Gomez, moved to adjourn the subcommittee meeting. All voted in favor of the motion and the meeting was promptly adjourned at 9:54 a.m.

Respectfully submitted by

DRAFT

Jeffrey M Willis, Deputy Director

CALENDAR INDEX