RI Coastal Resources Management Council
...to preserve, protect, develop, and restore coastal resources for all Rhode Islanders
...to preserve, protect, develop, and restore coastal resources for all Rhode Islanders
In accordance with notice to member of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council, a virtual meeting was held on Tuesday, January 12, 2021 at 6:00 p.m. utilizing Zoom Meeting, and Council members participating remotely.
Members Present
Jennifer Cervenka, Chair
Raymond Coia, Vice Chair
Donald Gomez
Patricia Reynolds
Michael Hudner
Ronald Gagnon, RIDEM
Jerry Sahagian
Joy Montanaro
Staff Present
Jeffrey Willis, Executive Director
James Boyd, Acting Deputy Director
Anthony DeSisto, Legal Counsel
Ryan Moore, Moderator
Lisa Turner, Office Manager, Recording Secretary
Laura Dwyer, Public Educ and Info Coordinator
Cindy Tangney, Court Reporter
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Cervenka called the meeting to order at 6:06 p.m. and identified the participants of the meeting, Council Members, Staff members, and applicants. The Chair stated that the meeting would be recorded.
2. Ryan Moore, Meeting Moderator, briefed participants on the meeting housekeeping items.
3. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING
Chair Cervenka called for a motion regarding the minutes for the December 8, 2020 Semi-monthly Meeting and the December 29, 2020 Semi-Monthly Meeting.
Motion approve the minutes of 12-08-2020.
Motion: Mr. Sahagian
Second: Mr. Gagnon
Roll Call Vote:
Vice Chair Coia Aye
Mr. Gomez Aye
Mr. Hudner Aye
Mr. Sahagian Aye
Ms. Reynolds Aye
Mr. Gagnon Aye
Ms. Montanaro Aye
Chair Cervenka Aye
Motion approve the minutes of 12-29-2020.
Motion: Mr. Coia
Second: Mr. Gomez
Roll Call Vote:
Vice Chair Coia Aye
Mr. Gomez Aye
Mr. Hudner Aye
Mr. Sahagian Aye
Ms. Reynolds Aye
Mr. Gagnon Aye
Ms. Montanaro Aye
Chair Cervenka Abstain
Motion Carried to approved minutes from 12-29-2020 meeting.
4. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS:
Mr. Boyd reported to the Council: None were heard.
5. STAFF REPORTS:
Mr. Willis updated the Council on the following:
6. REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION BEFORE THE COUNCIL FOR 4th AND FINAL APPROVAL:
A2007-04-157 WALTER BOZZI – Construct and maintain a residential dwelling, OWTS and permeable driveway. Located at 39 Spadina Avenue, Warwick, RI; plat 334, lots 220, 221
A2007-04-158 RALPH BOZZI – Construct and maintain a residential dwelling with OWTS and permeable driveway. Located at 33 Spadina Avenue, Warwick, RI; plat 334, lots 218, 219
Mr. Willis gave brief overview of the CRMC Assent Extension process stating that CRMC regulations, specifically Management Procedures Section 1.5.12, allows for the granting for good cause, three 1-year administratively approved Assent extensions and a fourth and final 1 year Assent extension which can only be approved by the Council. Mr. Willis explained that CRMC staff had performed a compliance check and that there had been no regulatory changes for the area in which the properties exist.
Walter Bozzi and Ralph Bozzi, brothers, were sworn in and identified themselves for the record.
Mr. W. Bozzi explained that it was the intention of both property owners to complete their assented projects within the allotted timeframe but with financial situation and health issues it was necessary for them to request extensions. Both property owners acknowledged that they understood this would be the final extension of their current CRMC Assents.
Kendra Beaver of Save The Bay addressed the Council and asked if a determination had been made by CRMC staff that there had been no change in the environmental issues on this property. Mr. Willis answered that for every extension request we receive, CRMC staff visits the site to confirm that the environmental conditions remain consistent with regulations and are similar to what they were when initially issued.
Mr. W. Bozzi confirmed for Chair Cervenka that OWTS’s were constructed on both lots.
Ralph Bozzi confirmed that he agreed with W. Bozzi testimony.
Mr. Sahagian motioned for approval of both Extensions suggesting that the extension date begin on the date of this meeting. Mr. Willis stated that extensions are usually granted based on the expiration date of the assent but that the Council did have legislative ability to modify any assent. Mr. Longo agreed.
Mr. Gomez and Mr. Hudner both second the motion.
Vice Chair Coia stated that the agreed with the motion and based on our process and their testimony on good cause he would vote to approve.
Roll Call Vote:
Vice Chair Coia Aye
Mr. Gomez Aye
Mr. Hudner Aye
Mr. Sahagian Aye
Ms. Reynolds Aye
Mr. Gagnon Aye
Ms. Montanaro Aye
Chair Cervenka Aye
Motion carried. Chair Cervenka confirmed that the Council approved 4th and final extension would expire on January 12, 2022.
7. APPLICATIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN OUT-TO-NOTICE AND ARE BEFORE THE FULL COUNCIL FOR DECISION:
2018-11-092 PAUL & TARA SANTA BARBARA -- Construct and maintain a residential boating facility consisting of a 4’ x 67’ fixed timber pier, 3’ x 20’ access ramp and 8’ x 18’ (144sf) terminal float. The facility is to extend ~37’ seaward of the cited MLW mark and requires a ~19’ property line setback variance to Red Book 650-RICR-20-00-01 Section 1.3.1(D). Located at plat R-2; Lots 229, 230, 231; 10 Sea Crest Drive, Narragansett, RI.
Ms. Silvia gave a brief overview of the application to the Council stating that the proposed facility would be located next to a Narragansett Town Right of Way (ROW) and did not meet the required 25’ sideline setback and that the Town of Narragansett had reservations about granting a sign-off of the sideline setback due to the popularity of the particular ROW and the close proximity of a municipal mooring field. Ms. Silvia further explained that additional objections had been received from a group of objectors regarding the close proximity of the dock to the ROW that is frequently used for many recreational activities.
Ms. Silvia stated that the application had been before the Council in January of 2020 and that the group of objectors had submitted various modified proposals for the relocation of the dock. Ms. Silvia explained that at the January 2020 meeting the Council directed the applicant and the group of objectors meet to try to resolve the objections.
Ms. Silvia explained that since the January 2020 meeting, there had been no resolutions made between the property owners and the group of objectors. Ms. Silvia stated that the Town of Narragansett was standing by their objection.
Ms. Silvia explained that the applicant was asking for approval of their proposal as submitted. Ms. Silvia explained the options submitted by the group of objectors stating that the group was suggesting that the proposed facility be moved closer to the easterly abutting property (Taylor) who had agreed to the sign- off of the sideline setback but that if the dock is relocated closer to their property, they would revoke their agreement as it would limit their ability to construct a dock on that property in the future. Ms. Silvia also stated that all options being presented required some sort of variance.
Ms. Silvia stated that through the review process CRMC became aware that outhauls had been placed within the local ROW and the municipal mooring field; all of the outhauls were not permitted or recognized within the local harbor management plan that the Town of Narragansett had entered into with the CRMC. Ms. Silvia stated that three outhauls had eventually been removed from within the ROW by the objector group but that the other outhauls required action from the Town of Narragansett.
Ms. Silvia confirmed that she had reviewed the variance criteria from the property line setback and that she would support a variance – limited amount.
Ms. Silvia clarified that CRMC had only reviewed the applicant’s proposed plans and had not done a detailed analysis on the various submittals of the objector groups.
There was some discussion on the outhauls in the abutting water body but it was determined that they needed to be reviewed on a separate occasion with the Town of Narragansett. Mr. Willis suggested revisiting at the end of the meeting so Council could provide direction for staff to work with Narragansett on the review of the outhauls.
Chair Cervenka invited the applicant to address the Council.
Present as representatives of the applicant were:
Mr. DeAngelis addressed the council stating that Attorney Elizabeth Noonan had been the applicant’s representative at the previous meeting but that he had been asked to attend this meeting. Mr. DeAngelis stated that he had read the very exhaustive staff report and stated that the owner intended to proceed on the basis of the application as originally submitted.
Mr. DeAngelis presented CJ Doyle, engineer, as a witness. Mr. DeAngelis stated that one of the points he would include was Ms. Doyle’s March 3rd, 2020 response to Ms. Silvia outlining the engineering concerns of what was being proposed by the objectors and why the applicant would not agree to the proposal.
CJ Doyle was sworn in and identified herself for the record and was qualified by resume and questions as a Professional engineer who had been before the Council several times as an expert witness.
Ms. Doyle, who has been involved in the application since the beginning, described the application stating that the property was a pie-shaped lot in which the property line extension would converge with other property line extensions; therefore, the 25’ sideline setback could not be maintained to the property line extension of the abutting property owners. Ms. Doyle stated that they tried to center the dock on the property to maximize footage from both abutters. Ms. Doyle stated that a 19’ variance would be required from the easterly abutting property and was looking for a similar variance from the westerly side, Town of Narragansett ROW. Ms. Doyle explained to the Council that had the applicant been able to acquire both sideline setback sign-offs, the dock could have been approved administratively.
Ms. Doyle confirmed what she had written in her March 3, 2020 letter to Ms. Silvia stating that if the Santa Barbara’s agreed to the proposal as set forth by the objectors, shortening the dock by 5’ and moving 4’ to the east allowing for the same size float, the proposed facility would not meet the required water depth and needing a variance to the Councils standard of 1.5’ of water on the seaward side of the float. Ms. Doyle stated that Mr. Santa Barbara would not be able to dock his boat in the minimized water depth.
Ms. Doyle confirmed that the current proposal meets the applicable policies of the CRMC to best of their ability with the exception of the sideline setbacks. Ms. Doyle stated that there would be minimal impact to the waters temporarily until all 10 pilings were in place and that the proposal as presented will not impact negatively on the environmental aspects of the area.
Ms. Doyle stated that Variance Criteria 3 could not be met due to the conditions of the uniquely shaped lot and that no prior actions by the applicant led to seeking his variance. Ms. Doyle stated that denial of this variance would cause an undue hardship to the property owner as he would not be able to have the dock he is entitled to.
Chair Cervenka asked Ms. Doyle if she had discussed the suggested restriction of location of their vessel being limited to the east side of the dock or moving the dock closer to the shore and a few feet to the east. Ms. Doyle stated that the Santa Barbara’s would rather not be restricted to using only one side of their dock and want their original proposal to be considered by the council.
Ms. Doyle confirmed for Mr. Gomez that the proposed structure is very similar to other dock configurations in the area. Ms. Doyle confirmed that the applicant did not want to have a restriction to the size boat allowed.
Mr. Sahagian pointed out that there are no regulations that allow the Council to control the size of an applicant’s boat and expressed his concern about the suggestion.
Chair Cervenka stated that the Council can put restrictions on use to minimize user conflict and stated that the Council needed to understand all options available to minimize the user conflicts in this instance.
Mr. Gagnon asked if the west side was a viable option now that the outhauls were removed. Ms. Doyle stated there were no more obstructions in the 40’ wide ROW and the boat should be fine docked on the west side of the facility.
No further questions from Council to witness.
Mr. DeAngelis had no further questions and stated that the applicant rests. Mr. DeAngelis stated that Mr. Santa Barbara was available for questioning as well and Jeffrey Balch, PE.
Public Comment:
Jill Sabo of the Town of Narragansett addressed the Council stating that the Town’s initial objection still stood as the applicant’s proposed facility would encroach in the public ROW and impact the public’s fairway in the water. Chair Cervenka asked if the Town would remove their objection if alternatives were proposed such as the restriction of the size of the vessel. Ms. Sabo stated that the Town Council would have to review any alternative proposed. Ms. Sabo also stated that the Town was interested in working with the CRMC to rectify the outhaul situation.
No further questions for Ms. Sabo.
Harvey Cataldo, Narragansett Harbor Management Commission, expressed his concern that the proposed facility would directly abut the ROW and any use of a boat on the west side of the dock would create interference with the ROW and the mooring fields. Mr. Cataldo stated he would consider an alternative proposal of reducing the length of the dock. Ms. Sabo confirmed that the Town asked for the float to be shortened and moved to the left.
No questions for Mr. Cataldo.
David Semararo, Great Island Association, addressed the Council regarding the group of abutters objections, specifically about the encroachment into the ROW. Mr. Semararo talked about the historical nature of the ROW. Mr. Semararo expressed the groups concerns that the dock would cause obstruction of the ROW. Mr. Semararo stated that the Association would like to see the dock relocated further east and the length shortened giving more flexibility on the western side of the dock. Mr. Semararo also suggested the removal of silt from bottom to attain 18’ of water at the relocated site. Mr. Semararo also suggested limiting the size of the boat to 23’ with a 9’ beam. Mr. Semararo asked for oversight when the dock is built to ensure it is built in the correct location. There was discussion on the water depth and use of the ROW for boat launching purposes.
Mr. Sahagian stated for the record that although he was absent at the January 2020 meeting when this was heard, he had read the minutes of the meeting and was eligible to vote.
Mr. Sahagian also asked that the Council focus on criteria in CRMP when considering the application. Mr. Sahagian asked Mr. Willis if the ROW ran perpendicular into the water or if it expanded on either side once in the water. Mr. Willis stated that the ROW should not expand on either side when going further into the water.
Alice Buratti – 12 Whitecap Road on Great Island addressed the Council stating that she lives across the street from the ROW and has a clear and complete view of the area and the daily usage. Ms. Buratti talked about the recreational uses of the waters and the changes in the area through the years, such as summer homes becoming year round residences. Ms. Buratti expressed concern that the right of everyone to enjoy the ROW would be infringed upon by the docks encroachment and would jeopardize the safety of everyone who uses the ROW.
Chris Brook – speaking for Allan Brook – stated that they share neighborhood concerns on ROW encroachment and hindering the use of the ROW while creating safety issues in the channel.
Michael Sun – resident of Great Island – speaking in regards to the safety issues for all who use the ROW. Shared photo of summertime use of the ROW.
Michael Taylor – 15 Seacrest Drive – Owner of the abutting property stating that his position on the proposal has not changed. Mr. Taylor stated that the family may want to build a house of their property at some point and would like to retain the ability to also build a dock as well.
Robert Crook via Mr. Semeraro asked for the shortening of the dock and shifting the position of the dock while being able to maintain the Taylor buffer of 6.5’. Mr. Crook also asked for the Council to limit the use of the dock to the easterly side for berthing of the boat. Mr. Crook felt that the alternative proposal would increase the ROW buffer.
No further commenters.
Mr. DeAngelis asked to briefly summarize the applicant’s position. Ms. Doyle was questioned regarding the alternative proposals and she stated that all the proposal brought about the need for variances.
Mr. DeAngelis introduced the property owner Paul Santa Barbara who was sworn in and identified himself for the record. Mr. Santa Barbara stated that when the dock was first designed a reduction was required. Mr. Santa Barbara stated that, in the very beginning, he had met with the Harbor Master and gone before the Town Council and met with CRMC and that he had done everything to make his proposal work for all parties. Mr. Santa Barbara directed questions to Ms. Doyle regarding alternatives. Mr. Santa Barbara stated that there was deep water access where the outhaul poles are and that their stringer swings out into the channel and he did not feel that his right to a dock should be affected based on outhauls that may or may not be legal.
Mr. DeAngelis did not have further questions.
No further questions to Mr. Santa Barbara
Ms. Silvia stated that the original proposal and alternative suggestions would work; the Santa Barbara’s would have their dock and there would be ample room for the Taylors to eventually build their dock. Ms. Silvia stated that if the float size were to be reduced, staff would support the water depth variance although staff would need to see details. Ms. Silvia expressed concern on how the CRMC would enforce the restricted use of the dock if approved to use only one side.
Chair Cervenka stated that one variance requirement was that the owner needed to show minimum variance and show that all alternatives have been explored which is difficult for the Council to review as there are no documents or alternative plans. Ms. Silvia pointed out that the applicant has not proposed options and that alternative options were presented by various groups.
Mr. Hudner asked if the minimum variance requested which is in place now meets the requirements of the Redbook for both ROW and Taylor property. Ms. Silvia concurred.
Mr. Hudner expressed concern in regards to requiring limitations on the applicant structure and also comments on the encroachment on the outhauls in ROW.
Chair Cervenka expressed concern that the minimum variance necessary was not met as our expert staff has confirmed more can be done to further minimize user conflict.
Mr. Hudner stated that the shortening of the dock would require additional variances and that the proposal in front of the Council required a more minimal variance.
Chair Cervenka stated that the variance on property line setback would be lessened if dock were shortened. Further discussion regarding which alternative required the least variance.
Mr. Sahagian motioned, based on the application submitted and the CRMC staff report from Ms. Silvia, for the approval of the dock as submitted.
Mr. Hudner seconded the motion.
Mr. Gomez stated that the concurred with motion but did not have enough information on the other options one of which was restriction on size and location of vessel in which staff concurred. Ms. Silvia clarified that she had not objection to the solutions to minimize the objector’s concerns. Mr. Gomez confirmed his support of the motion.
Mr. Gagnon stated that he believed the removal of the outhauls addressed the encroachment on the ROW and opened up the area to use both sides of the dock but that he would be in favor of restricting boat size to 13’.
Chair Cervenka stated that she would not support the motion to approve as is as she does not feel that the variance criteria have been met.
Mr. Sahagian requested to move the motion and have a vote.
Mr. Gomez stated that he could support some restrictions but 13’ boat is small and would ask for a larger boat size restriction.
Mr. Sahagian expressed concern regarding the limitation of the boat size on this dock in terms of setting a precedent for the area.
Ms. Reynolds stated that she could support limiting the usage of the dock to one side but not the size of the boat. Ms. Silvia stated that while the limitation would not increase the physical setback it would work towards the town and objectors’ goals.
Mr. Gagnon stated he would support the amendment to the motion.
Chair Cervenka stated she agreed with the dock side usage limitation.
Mr. Gomez stated he concurred with the idea to restrict to eastern side without restriction of boat size.
Mr. Sahagian stated he did not support the limitation to the side usage on the dock.
Vice Chair Coia stated that he supported the motion as made saying that he was familiar with the meeting from a year ago including the evidence from applicant, attorney and specialist. Vice Chair Coia stated that he thought the homeowners had done everything they could to satisfy all parties and that he would not want to restrict size of boat nor would he want to restrict the use of the other side of the dock. Vice Chair stated that in fairness to the applicant and for the reasons he stated, he would support Mr. Sahagian’s motion.
Mr. Hudner agreed and stated he supported Mr. Sahagian’s motion. Mr. Hudner expressed concern that the restricting the use of the western side of the dock could be considered a takings.
Chair Cervenka stated that the burden to prove that the project meets certain criteria and minimizes impact on public access, would show doing the minimum outside of what we would normally require as a standard.
Mr. Gagnon suggested amending the motion to add motorized vessels on east side of the dock and un- motorized vessels on the west side of the dock.
Mr. Gomez stated that the proposed dock application would have been approved administratively except for Narragansett’s failure to agree to plan; that CRMC staff felt that what has been proposed is reasonable and that he agree to the restrictions.
Ms. Montanaro brought to everyone’s attention the three outhauls there that were not permitted and didn’t seem to be a problem to the neighborhood or the town. Ms. Montanaro stated, in her opinion, the lack of action in regards to the outhauls negates the size and the problem that seems to be arising with the dock and the boat. Ms. Montanaro also brought to everyone’s attention that the neighborhood had no problem with the other boats that were in Michael Sun’s picture. Ms. Montanaro expressed concern in regards to the Council imposing the limitations.
Chair Cervenka stated that she was absent from the January 2020 meeting but read the transcript so she was eligible to vote. Chair Cervenka asked for additional comments before the vote.
No further comments were heard.
Roll Call Vote:
Vice Chair Coia Aye
Mr. Gomez Aye
Mr. Hudner Aye
Mr. Sahagian Aye
Ms. Reynolds Aye
Mr. Gagnon Aye
Ms. Montanaro Aye
Chair Cervenka No
Motion to approve as presented has been approved.
Short break -- Back on the record at 9:19
8. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED RULEMAKING: Management Procedures (650-RICR-10- 00-1)
The CRMC proposes to amend its Management Procedures to reduce the application fee for small scale, low cost projects within CRMC's jurisdiction, continue the application fee waiver for nonfederal dredging projects associated with an Army Corps federal navigation maintenance project in the Providence River and Harbor, and to provide for an application fee waiver for coastal hazard resiliency projects as part of Army Corps federal funded projects. In addition, the CRMC proposes changes to correct existing text and citations as summarized below:
Mr. Boyd addressed the Council and clarified that what was before the council was adoption of proposed management procedures. Mr. Boyd confirmed that the proposed changes to the Management Procedures were duly notices on 11/20/2020 and that the Council held a public hearing on 12-08-2020 with not public comments offered. Mr. Boyd also confirmed that no written comments were received during the public notice period ending on 12-21-2020. Technical corrections were included to identify Lisa Turner as the public records officer.
Chair Cervenka stated that the changes were extensively reviewed on the Subcommittee level and asked for a motion.
A motion to approve was offered by Mr. Gomez with a second from Vice Chair Coia.
No further discussion
Roll Call Vote:
Vice Chair Coia Aye
Mr. Gomez Aye
Mr. Hudner Aye
Ms. Reynolds Aye
Mr. Gagnon Aye
Ms. Montanaro Aye
Chair Cervenka Aye
Motion to approve carried.
Mr. Boyd stated he will submit the proposed changes to the Management Procedures and 20 days after filing they will become regulation.
9. ADJOURN
Motion: Chair Cervenka
Second: Mr. Hudner
Motion to adjourn carried.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa A. Turner
Recording Secretary
Stedman Government Center
Suite 116, 4808 Tower Hill Road, Wakefield, RI 02879-1900
Voice 401-783-3370 • Fax 401-783-2069 • E-Mail cstaff1@crmc.ri.gov
An Official Rhode Island State Website