In accordance with notice to members of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council’s Planning & Procedures subcommittee, a meeting was held on Tuesday, April 19, 2016 at 8:30am at the offices of the CRMC, Stedman Government Center, 4808 Tower Hill Rd, Wakefield, RI.

MEMBERS PRESENT
Anne Livingston, Chair
Joy Montanaro
Angelo Liberti

STAFF PRESENT
Grover Fugate, CRMC Executive Director
Jeff Willis, Deputy Director
James Boyd, Coastal Policy Analyst
Tracy Silvia, Sr. Environmental Scientist
Dave Beutel, Aquaculture Coordinator
Brian Goldman, Legal Counsel

Call to Order. Ms. Livingston called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m.

Ms. Livingston called for a motion to approve the minutes of the March 16, 2016 subcommittee meeting.

Item 4.A – Management Procedures Section 4.3.2 Schedule of Fees. G. Fugate explained that staff has seen an increase in applications for de minimus renewable energy and other similar type of such activities within the agency’s jurisdiction that pose no impact to the coastal resources such as solar panel applications and concrete pads for backyard wind towers or A/C units. He further stated that the proposed revisions are to reflect that level of impact.

Item 4.B. – RICRMP Section 300.4.D.3 – Recreational Boating Facilities/Prohibitions. J. Willis introduced the proposed rule change such that aquaculturists should be exempt from the prohibition of off- loading commercial fishing catches at residential docks and limited recreational boating facilities because shellfish aquaculture is a farm harvest as opposed to a wild catch. G. Fugate explained the definition of a limited recreational boating facility. Ms. Livingston noted that neighbors may complain about the comings and goings of such activities. Ms. Montanaro asked how aquaculturists farm without such access. G. Fugate and D. Beutel explained that all aquaculture applicants must demonstrate during the permit application review process that they have access to loading and off-loading areas. Each indicated that this could include a commercial facility such as a marina or at a right-of-way where they bring their harvest to their vehicles. Mr. Liberti noted that some DEM facilities are DEM-classified as recreational boating facilities and that DEM wouldn’t want nor could allow such an activity due to restrictions for such as a result of using federal funding to build the facility. Staff responded that the CRMC definition would be controlling and it wouldn’t impact the use of the DEM facility. Mr. Liberti suggested and B. Goldman offered that language could be added that clarifies that this allowance is only for private such facilities. Ms. Montanaro stated that there should be clear ownership connection of the shellfish aquaculture lease site and the dock facility. Staff agreed.

Ms. Livingston asked staff to consider the comments and issued raised and return with new proposed language at a later date.

Item 5.A. – Maximum Development Stipulations. J. Willis explained how in the review of a limited number of permit applications staff has found that there exists some instances where the ultimate issuance of an assent should also indicate that given the level of variances and impacts to the state’s coastal resources authorized in the Assent, no additional future development of the site should occur. In some of these instances, the limited application of new activities may occur given available site conditions. B. Goldman explained the history of this issue and that over time he and staff had worked out a deed restriction template to use if staff could support a highly variant application but also believed that in so doing and in the best interests of the state’s management of its coastal resources that a ‘no future development’ deed restriction be included in such a decision. The template could be used for administrative as well as full council reviews. He also emphasized that in order for this method to be employed the applicant needs to sign-off on the deed restriction ahead of the issuance of any Assent. Ms. Montanaro noted and all agreed that the Council would not necessarily be obliged to approve an application that was at the Council for a decision simply because the deed restriction was agreed to. B. Goldman added that the use of this vehicle makes the legal defense ‘iron clad’ and further noted that by taking this approach, an application that is subsequently approved with this deed restriction agreed to by the owner puts the next owner(s) on proper notice as both the Assent and the Deed Restriction would be recorded in the land evidence records. He also noted that to be legally enforceable it must be agreed to ahead of time and signed by the applicant. Ms. Montanaro asked if there should be a type(s) of application for which this would be used. Ms. Livingston stated that the agency should be flexible in such application of this tool. G. Fugate explained that there are not many of these applications that present themselves over the course of the year and that staff notifies him early on in the review process of such so that he can direct the review process for this issue; for administrative applications staff cannot implement this deed restriction without his direction to do so. T. Silvia explained two specific examples of applications where this deed restriction was necessary; one for a lot that would be heard by the full council and the other that was decided upon administratively. Both were recorded in the land evidence records and both subsequently put up for sale. T. Silvia explained how the value of recording the deed restriction resulted in several phone calls and meetings over the future use of each parcel. Ms. Montanaro asked if it would be beneficial to develop internal guidance on how this deed restriction management tool should be used. G. Fugate answered that it would be and Ms. Livingston directed staff to develop such and move forward in the use of this deed restriction management tool.

ADJOURNMENT. Ms. Montanaro, seconded by Mr. Liberti, moved to adjourn the subcommittee meeting. All voted in favor of the motion and the meeting was adjourned at 9:43 a.m.

Respectfully submitted by

Jeffrey M Willis, Deputy Director

CALENDAR INDEX