5. APPLICATIONS REQUESTING EXTENSION REQUESTS BEFORE THE FULL COUNCIL:

2004-08-029 ARMAND DeLUISE – Extension of Assent to construct a three bedroom single family dwelling with deck, and denitrifying ISDS. Located at plat 334, lots 252, 253; Spadina Avenue, Warwick, RI.

Mr. DeLuise was present, sworn in and identified himself for the record. Present to represent Mr. DeLuise was Attorney Joseph Brennan who stated that Mr. DeLuise was seeking his final extension and that he had every intension of completing the construction of the home within the year. Mr. Brennan explained that the ISDS system had been installed. Mr. DeLuise stated that he held off building structure due to financial reasons.

Chair Cervenka clarified that the application had also been subject to RI tolling Laws (2009-2016) which had also extended the assent timeframe.

Mr. Fugate confirmed that there were no substantial CRMC regulation changes that would have affected the review of this permit.

Mr. Sahagian motioned, seconded by Mr. Hudner, to approve the extension.

Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote.

Warren Pack was present, and represented by Attorney Joseph DeAngelis.

Mr. Lucia gave a brief overview of the application stating that the proposal was for structural shoreline protection (with a vegetative planting component) as the property is located between two properties that also have shoreline protection facilities. Mr. Lucia stated that heavy erosion currently occurs on the property as the wave action is directed and focus on the subject lot due to seawalls on either side. Mr. Lucia explained that both Mr. Fugate and Janet Freedman, CRMC Geologist, had determined the site to be manmade shoreline. Mr. Lucia stated that both abutters had objected to the project, the eastern abutter due to the ownership and nature of an existing easement on the property that gives him beach access and the western property abutter, Ms. Pinney objected to the height of the wall that would abut her wall. Mr. Lucia explained that the applicant’s engineer revised the project to meet Ms. Pinney’s concerns but that a second letter reasserting her objection had been received today.

Mr. Lucia stated that CRMC regulations have been met for structural shoreline protection and that CRMC did not have an objection to the approval of the project. Mr. Lucia also explained that the CRMC’s Coastal Geologist, Janet Freedman, wrote in her report that provisions should be made to assure that there is no loss in lateral shoreline access. Provisions can include stairs at both the east and west ends of the revetment and a surface appropriate for walking along the top of the revetment, especially once compromised by sea level rise. Mr. Fugate stated that the Geologist’s stipulation is standard practice now.

Mr. Lucia confirmed for Mr. Sahagian that the applicant was not seeking any variances. Mr. Fugate stated that the application would have been approved administratively but that objections had been received.

Chair Cervenka asked for clarification on the question of ownership through an easement. Mr. Lucia explained that there is an existing easement for the western abutter to cross over property to access the beach and is concerned that the revetment would block his access, especially with the planting of vegetation.

Mr. Hudner asked if the easement would expire if the erosion claimed the soil. Mr. Lucia stated that the land would erode between both seawalls so that it would eventually be tidal waters.
Mr. Sahagian asked Mr. DeSisto to advise the Council regarding the easement situation. Mr. DeSisto stated that it would be improper for CRMC to determine legality of easement over property and that it would need to be decided in superior court.

Mr. DeAngelis began by stating the he agreed with Mr. Fugate’s summation that as they were not asking for variances or special exceptions, the application could have been granted administratively. Mr. DeAngelis called Mr. Cabral, PE, of Crossman Engineering; the engineer who had designed the structure.

Steven Cabral was sworn in and identified himself for the record. At Mr. DeAngelis’ request to qualify Mr. Cabral as an expert witness Mr. DeSisto advised the Council that it is not necessary to qualify Mr. Cabral as an expert witness stating it was appropriate for the witness to give his expert opinion on the matter.

Referring to a large plan during his testimony, Mr. Cabral testified that 170 feet of Mr. Pack’s property is exposed to the ocean and that there are two seawalls on either side of his property. Mr. Cabral confirmed that Ms. Pinney’s very strong opinion and objections had been addressed on the revised plans by stepping the revetment so that as it abuts Ms. Pinney’s revetment it is the same height. Mr. Cabral stated that they agreed to hand excavation when working near Ms. Pinney’s seawall. Mr. Cabral stated that another concern that was address was the plantings – both location and type of plantings.

Mr. Cabral explained using the plan that after meeting with CRMC, he designed the wall with a 4 to 1 ratio slope of sand layers on top of the stone blocks to minimize the appearance of a manmade structure and similar to what would be found in a natural bluff area. Mr. Cabral stated that it should not impede easement access to the water if the Walsh family (abutter) decided not to use the stairs that are there now.

Mr. Cabral testified that the addition of the Pack revetment would give added protection to the abutting properties as it would minimize the erosion that is occurring on the revetments that abut the Pack’s open property as it stands.

No further questions from Mr. DeAngelis.

Council to applicant:

Chair Cervenka inquired as to the purpose of Ms. Pinney’s specific plantings request. Mr. Cabral stated it was Ms. Pinney’s personal preference to have a mixture of Virginia rose and bayberry with Carolina rose along the frontage. Mr. Rabideau, of NRS, who consulted on the project, did not see any issues with those plantings in this area. Mr. Lucia stated that CRMC does ask for vegetation to be planted and the suggested plantings are typically deep-rooted vegetation that would be intended to prevent erosion.

Mr. Gomez asked if the latest FEMA flood maps were being used. Mr. Cabral stated that they were but that what they really tried to do was satisfy the abutters and make the revetment similar in height to the abutter seawalls; which would be 12.3’ at the Pinney wall and 14’ at the Walsh wall.
Mr. Gagnon asked about the 4’ wide stairway shown on the plans. Mr. Cabral confirmed that the stairway would be the main access for the Packs to access the beach, in the same manner as both abutting neighbors. Mr. Gagnon inquired as to the need for the easement if stairs are available to all parties from their properties. Mr. Cabral could only confirm that the easement was adjacent to the Walsh property along the side.

Mr. Bowen Cross-Examination of Mr. Cabral:

Mr. Cabral confirmed that the purpose of the revetment was to accept wave/tidal action and prevent erosion all across the coastline and that the placement of the revetment was based upon the location of the Walsh and Pinney walls. Mr. Cabral stated that the sand placed on the seawall would be washed away during a severe storm event and would have to be replenished. Mr. Cabral explained the plantings that would be at the property line between the Pack’s and the Walsh’s properties stating that the 12 foot area would be planted with 3’ beach grass closer to the ocean and then Carolina rose which Mr. Cabral explained were suitable for the area based on CRMC staff and Scott Rabideau of NRS. Mr. Cabral confirmed that the purpose of the shrubbery would be to help the soil stay intact. Mr. Cabral confirmed that Mr. Walsh would have to traverse through the shrubbery or cut some to be able to access the beach at the easement is he chose not to use his own access stairs.

Kevin Bowen, Attorney representing Joseph and Barbara Walsh, presented. Mr. Bowen explained that his clients have an easement to pass to and fro by foot for purposes of launching small crafts on a strip of land where the revetment will be covered with sand and plantings. Mr. Bowen presented the Council with deeds establishing the easement. Mr. Bowen explained the history of the two properties stating that one property was split in half in 1993 with Mr. Pack’s property acquiring the easement. Mr. Lucia confirmed that the deed was part of the CRMC file/record.

There was discussion amongst the Council as to their involvement concerning the property easement. Mr. DeSisto advised the Council to review the project as it pertains to CRMC regulations. Mr. Bowen countered that, at the least, his client, Walsh Family, should be a co-applicant since they are recognized as having an interest in the property. Mr. Bowen further stated that the Walshes were asserting their right to not have their agreed upon easement interfered with.

Chair Cervenka asked what the alternatives were for access if revetment is constructed. Mr. DeAngelis stated that Mr. Walsh, through his attorney, could seek relief from the Superior Court as they had done in the past.

Mr. DeAngelis, closed by saying that the applicant applied for the project, met all the CRMC programmatic regulations and that the Packs will keep the was in conformance with the permit as it is an important asset to them. Any other issue will be taken up in a different venue and the Packs will be ready.

Mr. Reis explained that the sand would be suitable for pedestrian access and suggested that a stipulation should be added to replenish sand if washed away. Mr. Reis stated that is something was to happen, the vegetation could be pruned and it will not affect the environment or the revetment. Mr. DeAngelis stated his clients would agree to pruning. Mr. Reis stated that it is important to maintain sand cover. Mr. Lucia explained that at this time, no pathway had been proposed or agreed to and that the slope will only have sand on it and the top of the revetment will be planted. Mr. Reis stated that CRMC typically will allow a path to be maintained and if it is decided through other means to uphold the traditional easement, it would not be an impact on our approval to have a pathway. Mr. DeSisto reiterated that the easement question should be vetted through another venue.

Chair Cervenka asked for clarification on the proposal of a co-applicant situation. Mr. DeSisto stated that the Washes could not be co-applicant as the easement is not true ownership.

Ms. Reynolds asked about the replenishment stipulation and who would call for the need to replenish. Mr. Fugate explained that CRMC usually set up post-storm maintenance/replenishment options.

Mr. Gagnon asked if CRMC would require a professional on-site project overseer during construction. Mr. Lucia stated that it could be stipulated as CRMC staffing may not allow for them to have consistent supervision through our offices. Mr. Lucia recommended having an outside source present as an onsite project overseer during critical times of the project.

Chair Cervenka asked if CRMC required a post-construction certified plan. Mr. Fugate stated that CRMC does not require that for seawalls, only docks.

Mr. DeAngelis confirmed that his client would be agreeable to having a third party on-site project overseer during critical project construction.

Chair Cervenka closed public comment.

Mr. Hudner motioned, seconded by Mr. Gomez, to approve the application as presented with additional stipulations of sand replenishment and construction supervision.

Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote.

2018-04-057 ISLAND MARINE CORP/TOWN OF NEW SHOREHAM – Construct and maintain a public access commercial structure (public dinghy dock) for short term use by transient visitors to Block Island. Components include one ADA (American Disabilities Act) compliant gangway from shore to a fixed pier landing area, one ADA compliant gangway from the fixed pier landing area to a 12’ x 20’ timber framed float and eight 8’ x 20’ timber frame floats and associated timber anchor plies as shown on the submitted plans. Located at plat 5, lot 67; Great Salt Pond seaward of Ocean Avenue, North of Dead Eye Dicks Restaurant, 218 Ocean Avenue, New Shoreham, RI.

Mr. Reis gave a brief overview of the project stating that the application was to construct and maintain a public access commercial structure, dinghy dock, for short term use by transient visitors to Block Island. Mr. Reis stated that a continuance request was received by Mr. Gorham would explain that further.

Mr. Reis continued stating that the Town informed CRMC that the current dinghy dock would no longer be supported by the Block Island Boat Basin which prompted the Town looked for other location for a public dinghy dock and consulted with CRMC during this process. Mr. Reis stated that there would not be a stipulated parking requirement as it is not considered a marina. Mr. Reis stated that trash collection would be part of the requirements by means of a dumpster approximately 280’ from the proposed dock. Mr. Reis explained that there are existing public restrooms nearby.

Mr. Reis explained that objections were received, but the most substantive was that the license agreement between the Town and Island Marine does allow for the agreement to be terminated upon agreement of both parties. Mr. Reis stated that he proposed a stipulation in the assent that the Assent, which is being issued for the activity sought – public dinghy dock, would become null and void for any other use.

Mr. Reis stated that CRMC staff recommended approval of the proposal and believed that all CRMC standards have been met.

Ed Roberge, New Shoreham Town Manager, and Jessica Wronowski, Island Marine Corp, were both sworn in and identified themselves for the record. Ms. Wronowski stated that Audie Osgood from DiPrete Engineering was also present.

Ms. Wronowski stated that both parties were in full agreement with everything stated and with all stipulations from the CRMC staff report.

Greg Schultz, Special Assistant Attorney General with the Attorney General’s office, was present in favor of the public amenity which will provide greater and safer access to the Great Salt Pond but expressed concern regarding the ownership of the littoral rights. Mr. Schultz further explained that since both parties co-applied, they no longer had concerns. Mr. Schultz stated that Attorney General Kilmartin is very happy with the conditions and the way the Council approached the application. Mr. Schultz then read Attorney General Kilmartin’s letter for the record (letter marked at exhibit).

Attorney Nick Gorham was present as representative of Payne’s Dock. Mr. Gorham expressed their concern regarding the license agreement between the Town and Island Marine but complimented the CRMC staff for addressing their concerns. Mr. Gorham submitted a document from Attorney Joe Priestly showing historical public access. Mr. Gorham stated that his client agreed to remove their objection as long as the Council adopts the CRMC report with stipulations and that they reserve their right to have issues with public access in the future.

Mr. Reis pointed out to the Council that there were three additional engineering stipulations which require review of final set of plans.

Chair Cervenka closed public comment.

Vice Chair Coia motioned, seconded by Mr. Hudner, for approval with stipulations previously enumerated being on page 6 and 10 of staff report.

Motion carried on a unanimous voice vote.

2017-05-012 KIRK DEXTER – Construct and maintain “As-built” tie off piles on the north side of the existing facility, requiring a Variance to Section 300.4.E.3k. Located at plat 17, lot 125; 35 Shore Road, Warren, RI.

Mr. Reis gave a brief overview of the application stating that staff is recommending approval as part of an enforcement matter that had been dealt with except for the tie-off pilings. Mr. Reis stated that objections had been received by the abutter, Andrew Karberg, for extension of property lines; and by the Warren Conservation Commission for granting variances resulting in the accumulation of oversized docks that usurp public water areas. Mr. Reis stated that the CRMC did not agree that the objections were substantive. Mr. Reis stated that the applicant successfully addressed the variance criteria.

Attorney Joseph DeAngelis, present to represent Mr. Dexter, stated that he agreed with CRMC staff reports and explained that having tie-off pilings was easier for his client. Mr. DeAngelis pointed out that Mr. Karberg was not present to press his objection.

Chair Cervenka closed public comment.

Mr. Sahagian motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Coia, for the approval of the application.

Mr. Reis asked if the motion could include requiring the pilings to be relocated within a specific period of time. It was discussed and decided that they needed to be moved six months from this meeting day (December 26, 2018).

Mr. Sahagian modified his motion to include time frame for relocating pilings. Motion seconded by Vice Chair Coia.

Motion carried.