Chair Livingston explained that the review of OSAMP Subcommittee Recommendation to deny motions to intervene was before the Council again due to incorrect notice. Mr. Goldman clarifies the situation on intervener status and explained that all members present at the last meeting were polled on the reading of the record. Mr. Goldman explained that only new evidence may be offered at the Full Council level and that each party would be given five minutes to address the Council and to introduce new evidence if any.

Attorney Terry Tierney addressed the Council and explained that he represented a number of proposed interveners – Rosemary Ives, John Ives, John Lyons, Kate Homans, Michael Beauregard, American Alliance of Fishermen and their Communities, and the Delias. Mr. Goldman stated that Mr. Elmer was present regarding the conditional Motion to Intervene from Conservation Law Foundation. Mr. Tierney started by expressing his concern on the record that the proceedings were unfair and in violation of due process. Mr. Tierney renewed his objections that were already raised regarding his belief that the application was incomplete when submitted but that the application was accepted and processed and put out to notice without the submittal of an application fee. Mr. Tierney expressed concern that the OSAMP Subcommittee acted on the incomplete application when they denied the motions to intervene. Mr. Tierney expresses his extreme concern regarding having to appear before the Council on an application that had already been voted on to deny intervention and called upon me to justify the intervention request with no action to overturn or revoke the previous action. Mr. Tierney explained that the notices received by his clients and himself had a scheduled date of May 28th but that the Council had reviewed the case on May 14th.

Vice Chair Lemont made a motion to reconsider the motion taken at May 14th meeting seconded by Mr. Gomez . Chair Livingston expressed sincere apologies on behalf of the Council for the clerical error. Motion carried.

Mr. Goldman explained that the Council was now in a position to reconsider their previous decision to deny motions to intervene.

Mr. Tierney stated that the reconsideration status does not clear up the due process violation that has occurred which was a violation of the Administrative Procedures Act and that it seemed as though the Council was just going through the motions. Mr. Tierney expressed his concerns that five members of the Full Council had voted on the subcommittee level to deny intervener status with Vice Chair Lemont moving to deny intervention as it may slow down the process (Mr. Tierney read from the record). Mr. Tierney stated that his clients will experience severe diminution of property value along with interference of use and enjoyment of their property. Mr. Tierney quoted Mr. Gomez from the transcript of 05-04-2013 regarding the flicker affect questions conclusion drawn by applicant about flicker health and safety impact regarding to flicker. Interveners say it is a problem – evidence that ought to be listened to. Mr. Tierney stated that reports issued by the State of Rhode Island state that property values were impacted within close proximity to a turbine. Mr. Tierney asked that all interveners be considered separately as not all have similar interests. Mr. Tierney also expressed that giving 5 minutes does not comport with due process for presenting new evidence. Chair Livingston stated that the Subcommittee listened to the arguments raised this evening and also considerable evidence was heard on the subcommittee level. Mr. Tierney objected on the record to being given only five minutes to introduce the new evidence that he had to present.

Mr. Goldman asked to make a few procedural points – one of which was that the fee had been paid in full in the Council offices. Mr. Goldman explained using the Management Procedures the definition of new evidence at the Full Council level advising the Council that if Mr. Tierney had wanted to present new evidence, it needed to be offered seven days in advance of the meeting.

Mr. Tierney expressed his disapproval of the fee that was paid in full which was less than the original fee that was quoted in the application and alleged back room negotiations with CRMC staff.
Chair Livingston stated that as far as she was concerned the fee was correct and properly submitted.

Ms. Robin Main asked that her objection to the comments made regarding the fee be put on the record and explained that the fee was paid in full and that paperwork was submitted as to how they came to the estimated fee.

Ms. Main asked that her previous comments be incorporated into the record from both the previous meeting, the subcommittee meeting and briefs submitted. Ms. Main emphasized her position that the information provided to the Council on behalf of Mr. Tierney’s clients was public comment which will be given extensively during application’s hearing process. Ms. Main asks that the Council deny the motions to intervene and allow the application to move forward.

Jerry Elmer, staff attorney for the Conservation Law Foundation stated that they had a conditional motion pending before the Council. Mr. Elmer stated that the CLF was in favor of the subcommittee’s recommendation to deny intervener status and urge the Council to uphold the recommendation. Mr. Elmer stated that the CLF as well as all involved would like to see a fair hearing process and those objectors do not need to have lawyers to give public comment or to participate. Mr. Elmer stated that the CLF’s second reason for asking the Council to uphold the Subcommittee’s recommendation to deny intervener status is that all SAMP issues have been decided and there should not be a venue to reopen issues such as Commercial reasonableness. Mr. Elmer ended by stating that although CLF would like for the intervener status to be denied, if it is granted, CLF would like to have intervener status as well.

Vice Chair Lemont motioned, seconded by Mr. Gomez, for the Council to adopt the OSAMP Subcommittee recommendation of April 5, 2013 to deny motion to intervene. Chair Livingston stated that she believed the proposed interveners did not have particularized interests. Mr. Gomez clarified that his comments on the Subcommittee level was for land-based wind turbines and that he did not feel that the turbine field would not be close enough to cause flicker. Mr. Gomez also clarified that the verbage from the State regarding property values was that it “may affect property values.”

With no other comments by Council the Chair asked for a vote. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote with an abstention from Mr. Sahagian.

Mr. Affigne expressed concern regarding the words of the Council members used as evidence against them and asked for intervention from the Chair if it happens again.

Mr. Willis gave a brief overview of the application to the Council stating that the City if asking to perform improvements to a public boat launching ramp in Type 4 waters and that CRMC permitting staff had no objections to the proposed activity. Representing the City was Andrew Silvia, Chief Project Development with the City of Pawtucket Department of Public Works and Sean Martin, Civil Engineer with Fuss and O’Neil. Both were sworn in an identified themselves for the record. Mr. Sahagian asked if there were any objectors to the project. Hearing none, Mr. Sahagian motioned for approval of application based on staff recommendation. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Lemont. Mr. Affigne inquired as to improvements in the parking area. Mr. Martin stated that the previous approval gives improved accessibility and parking along with a large plaza area and landscape improvements which is part of a remediation project that the City undertook. With no other comments received, Chair Livingston asked for a vote. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Willis gave a brief overview of the application to the Council stating that permitting staff recommended approval of the project. James McGinn, DEM, Andres Aveledo, DEM were present to answer questions. Mr. deRamel motioned, seconded by Mr. Sahagian, for approval of application. Chair Livingston asked for project timeframe. Mr. McGinn and Mr. Aveledo were both sworn in and identified themselves for the record. Mr. McGinn stated that the project would not be done this summer as the public bidding process still needed to be completed but that if they got underway after the 2013 season they would be ready for the 2014 boating season. With no other comments received, Chair Livingston asked for a vote. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote with Mr. Gagnon abstaining from the vote.

Mr. Willis gave a brief overview of the project and stated that permitting staff had no objection to project. Chair Livingston opened the public hearing for the special exception. Mr. Affigne asked about erosion of the road. Mr. McGinn confirmed that the road was in very poor condition and that they will be improving the road. Mr. McGinn confirmed that the north side of the road will be a living shoreline and the south side will be riprap. Chair Livingston closed the public hearing. Vice Chair Lemont motioned for approval of the special exception, seconded by Mr. deRamel. Mr. Goldman took a roll call vote on approval of the special exception:

Mr. Goldman confirmed that there were six votes in the affirmative with one abstention and the special exception was adopted.

Mr. Sahagian motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Lemont, to approve application with special exception. The motion was carried unanimously with one abstention by Mr. Gagnon.