Mr. Lucia gave the briefest of overviews to the Council. Mr. Fugate informed the Council that the applicant had sent in a request to withdraw the application without prejudice so that they could come back with an application more in line with Council regulations. Attorney Nicholas Gorham, of Gorham and Gorham addressed the Council stating that the applicant was asking to be able to work with staff on a redesign more in line with CRMC regulations. Mr. Goldman explained CRMC procedure stating that once staff reports were completed, requests for withdrawal needed to be granted by the full Council. Mr. Fugate suggested that the withdrawal be for a specific timeframe in case an agreement is not met. Mr. Sahagian suggested 90 days. Mr. Hudner expressed his concern that the applicant was not going to be held accountable for the violation of building without a permit. Vice Chair Lemont agreed with Mr. Hudner and inquired as to how CRMC staff did not hear about the violation until after it was completed. Mr. Fugate stated that he did not understand how staff did not hear about it but that a Cease and Desist Order was issued as soon as it was reported. Chair Livingston asked if the new application would include removing of the illegal structure and working with staff on more appropriate wall that would be reviewed by the full Council. Mr. Fugate stated that if the Council was to act on the application as is before them, and a denial decision was made, the applicant would have to come back before the Council with a completely different design, which Mr. Hudner agreed was probably likely at any rate. Mr. Coia stated that he would like to see the applicant and staff try to work something out in which the wall would be pulled back off coastal feature. Mr. Fugate suggested that the application be tabled for 90 days, held in abeyance, so the applicant can work with staff and if acceptable plans are not received, the application would return to the Council with a denial recommendation. Mr. Sahagian agreed stating that it would give the attorney the opportunity to represent his client and it would protect our staff. There was discussion amongst the Council members on the motion made and seconded that the application be brought back in 90 days. Vice Chair Lemont expressed his concern that the wall would not completely be removed to Council standards. Mr. Gagnon asked if it was expected that the wall be removed and restoration be reached before a new wall is constructed further inland. Mr. Fugate agreed that the wall would have to be removed and toe of the wall would be further inland. Mr. Gomez asked that the Council be able to review the resubmitted application even if is categorized as administrative. Vice Chair Lemont asked that the staff time be tracked for reimbursement by the applicant. Vice Chair Lemont amended the motion that the application be brought before the Council on January 14, 2014 and that fees be assessed. Mr. Sahagian asked that the fee assessment be held off until the January 14, 2014 meeting. Mr. Fugate stated that an assessment of Staff time would be submitted at the first January meeting. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Mr. Lucia gave a brief overview of the application explaining that the request was for the replacement of the existing Great Island Bridge (No. 499) which required the granting of a special exception for filling in coastal wetlands, beaches and banks. Mr. Lucia stated that mitigation of 8634 square feet of wetlands with restoration, phragmites removal and regarding of existing berms. Mr. Lucia stated that there were no staff objections to granting of the special exception. Mr. Lucia also mentioned that new FEMA maps had been published since October 16th with increased elevations as far as flood zones. Mr. Lucia stated that there were no staff objections to the bridge design. Chair Livingston asked about traffic movement during construction. The public hearing was opened and David Fish, Managing Engineer for RIDOT Bridge Design, Mary Bertrand, Project Manager for RIDOT Bridge Design, and Kevin Nagel, Design Engineer for Gordon Archibald Engineers were sworn in and identified themselves for the record. Mr. Fish explained that construction of the bridge would be in two phases, half at a time, with a traffic light on each end of the causeway for rotation of traffic in and out of the island. Chair Livingston closed the public hearing. Mr. Sahagian motioned for approval of special exception based on the fact that project served a compelling public purpose. Vice Chair Lemont seconded the motion. Mr. Goldman took a roll call vote.

Mr. Sahagian Yes
Mr. Hudner Yes
Mr. Gomez Yes
Ms. Montanaro Yes
Mr. deRamel Yes
Mr. Coia Yes
Mr. Gagnon Yes
V . Chair Lemont Yes
Chair Livingston Yes

Motion carried.

Mr. Sahagian motioned for approval of the application. Vice Chair Lemont seconded the motion. Motion carried on unanimous voice vote.

(c) Yacht Clubs and other boating facilities that are listed on the National Historic Register that are destroyed may apply for a maintenance Assent before the Council (reconstruction) provided that the exact historical foot print of the structure is utilized and a similar architectural edifice is utilized on the building. All non-façade elements shall be in compliance with the latest edition of the Rhode Island State Building Code.

Purpose: To provide for the rebuilding of destroyed boating facilities listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Mr. Boyd gave a brief overview to the Council of the proposed change explaining that a provision was being added for yacht clubs and boating facilities listed on the National Register of Historic Places so that they would be eligible for a maintenance assent to rebuild if they were destroyed by a storm or fire, et cetera. Mr. Boyd explained that one comment was received from RIHPHC during the 30 day comment period expressing no objection as long as they are included in the review process.

Chair Livingston opened the Public hearing; and with no comments heard, Chair Livingston closed the public hearing.

Mr. Coia motioned, seconded by Mr. Sahagian, the approval of the proposed program change. Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote.