In accordance with notice to member of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council, a meeting was held on Tuesday, June 25, 2024 at 6:00 p.m. located at the Administration Building, Conference Room A, One Capitol Hill, Providence, RI.

Members Present
Raymond Coia, Chair
Ronald Gagnon, DEM
Don Gomez
Patricia Reynolds
Stephen Izzi
Kevin Flynn
Joseph Russolino

Staff Present
Jeffrey Willis, Executive Director
Laura Miguel, Deputy Director
Anthony DeSisto, Legal Counsel
Mark Hartmann, Asst Legal Counsel
Tracy Silvia, Prin Environmental Scientist
Lisa Turner, Recording Secretary (via zoom)
Justin Skenyon, Coastal Engineer and IT for tonight
Cynthia Tangney, Court Reporter

1. CALL TO ORDER

Chair Coia called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

2. Review/Action of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting – Tuesday, May 28, 2024

Chair Coia called for a motion regarding the minutes for the Tuesday, May 28, 2024 Semi-monthly Meeting.

Motion: Ms. Reynolds
Second: Mr. Russolino
Motion carried on unanimous vote.

3. Subcommittee Reports

No Reports.

4. Staff Reports

Mr. Willis reported to the Council:

• Engaged informally by RI Nurseries & Landscape Architects Association to develop and apprenticeship program. It will be beneficial to all parties to have landscape architects and nurseries become well versed in CRMC policies.
• Working with the Town of Charlestown on a project involving the west wall of the Ninigret Breachway which is in need of structural work. Winter storms brought sediment into the breachway.

5. Administrative Applications before the Council for Review and Action:

2022-12-075 NICHOLAS VELTRI – Construct and maintain an elevated 603sf two-bedroom single family home serviced by public sewer and water, as well as pervious parking for stormwater management. A walkway to stairs and deck are also proposed, with minimal buffer zone and site grading. Located at plat N-A, lot 28-K, Wilson Drive, Narragansett, RI.

Nicholas Veltri was present as well Attorney John Garrahy as legal representation.

Mr. Izzi added to the record that he had worked in the same law firm with John Garrahy for 10 years and after discussion with Legal Counsel, it was decided that there would be no conflict in this matter.

Ms. Silvia gave a brief overview of her project review:

• the project was located on the east side of the Narrow River south of CRMC designated ROW C-10.
• ROW housed the current stormwater basin for the neighborhood.
• two Preliminary Determination applications (PDs) submitted to CRMC prior to this application.
  2017 PD comments on the wetland edge delineation; 100% setback would be required, sea level
  impacts and unfavorable staff support for large variances.
• 2020 PD saw an updated wetland edge as well as a reduction in house size to 740 sf. Staff
  commented about large variances and sea level rise as well as unfavorable recommendations for
  proceeding with the project.
• Current application reduced to 603 sf footprint.
• Buffer Zone required 72% variance and 50’ setback required a 75% variance.
• Project not consistent with Coastal Hazard Analysis which recommended a 16.3’ for first floor storm
  elevation.
• Objections received from nearby residents as well as Pettaquamscutt Terrace Improvement Assoc and
  Narrow River Preservation Association.
• Stormwater management proposed for rain garden.
• Past and current conditions of the site and surrounding area reveal significant flooding during high
  rainfall and tidal flooding.
• Development of lot would be precedent setting for other significantly variance constricted parcels
  Staff opinion that the application should be denied.
• If approved, staff recommended deed restrictions contained in staff report against further site
  development.

Ms. Silvia confirmed for Chair Coia that the applicant did make concessions to size of house when working with staff.

Ms. Silvia also confirmed for Chair Coia that staff concerns were for the entirety of the project, structure, placement, buffer variances and flooding concerns.

Attorney John Garrahy addressed the Council and introduced other members of the application team – all were sworn in and identified themselves for the record.

• Joe Casali, PE; Joe Casali Engineering, Inc.
• Nicholas Veltri – Applicant and owner of property; Licensed Surveyor
• James Houle – Appraiser
• John Tzitzouris – Professional Land Surveyor
• Scott Rabideau – Natural Resources Services

Joe Casali’s Project Overview using Power Point Presentation:

• Assessor’s Plat N-A lot 28-K is about an 8,000 sf lot
• In R-10 residential zone.
• Legal lot of record dated back to 1956.
• Scott Rabideau delineated the 25-foot buffer zone area in 2021.
• CRMC approved stormwater basin in abutting Town property.
• Public Boat access on abutting property ROW C-10.
• Entire parcel is in flood zone.
• Topography goes in westerly direction from elevation 6 to approx. 4.
• PP showing location and footprint of dwelling – as close to the eastern property edge as possible.
• Special Use permit required because of FWWVC and CRMC.
• Dimensional relief from front yard setback needed as well.
• Zoning board relief approved in 2022.
• PP showed rendering of the house on pilings while Mr. Casali explained the elevations and
  dimensions of the multiple floor house.
• House will utilize municipal sewer and water.
• Photos shown of recent storm flooding– not tidal flooding – and the improved drainage system
• There was discussion regarding the rain garden and its purpose in helping with drainage.
• Discussion of elevation using original drawings from Nicholas Veltri as well as calculations from J.
  Tzitzouris.
• Pictures showing flooding potential before and after the Town of Narragansett’s boat ramp public
  access project.

Chair Coia, Mr. Casali and Ms. Silvia entered into discussion regarding the reason for the house elevation and flood elevation due to the proximity of the river during storm events as well as preventative measures taken such as the rain garden.

Mr. Casali confirmed for Mr. Gomez that the expected useful life of the house would be 30-40 years if not more. Mr. Casali stated that there would be an operation and maintenance plan set up for the rain garden in perpetuity.

Mr. Gagnon and Mr. Casali entered into a discussion on the ground water table in the area of the rain garden and the design of the rain garden itself.

Mr. Veltri testified to his background as a registered land surveyor, his knowledge as to the previous CRMC PD applications; his coordination with CRMC staff and downsizing of the structure based on CRMC comments; as well as the elevation of where the house was proposed on the lot.

Mr. Veltri testified as to the materials that will be used for construction and that the house would be designed to withstand hurricane forces as long as approved by the building official.

Mr. Veltri testified to the view from the river in regard to the placement of the house – using an architectural rendering of the house and a picture that was taken by Mr. Garrahy.

Mr. Veltri testified as to the FEMA elevation AE-11, and flooding of the property as well as the road when it rains. Mr. Veltri explained the crushed stone under the house to allow for water dissipation if under the house.
Mr. Casali explained that the house would be elevated and would not create and adverse impact by displacing flood waters and the rain garden bmps would help with any flooding from stormwater.

Mr. Veltri testified that the house would be serviced town sewer and water systems thereby not creating any adverse impact.

Mr. Veltri testified that during construction, they intended to stay as far away from the coastal feature as possible, sedimentation controls would be in place and work would be done from street side.

Mr. Veltri testified that to the north of his property there are three or four houses that are on the Narrow River at the same elevation if not lower and each have no buffers.

Mr. Veltri confirmed for Mr. Izzi that he currently lived on Colonel John Gardner Road in Narragansett’s Bonnet Shores area with a view of the West Passage of Narragansett Bay and that he and his wife plan to downsize and move to this house as he loved the area.

James Houle, Real Estate Appraiser, testimony:

• Real Estate Appraiser values the rights of a piece of real property.
• Forms an opinion of the market value of the rights.
• Familiar with the property and the area of the property
• Familiar with CRMC Standards for variances from Buffer requirements and reviewed them with Mr.
  Garrahy stating that the variance requested is the minimum variance.
• Variances to applicable standards are not due to any actions of Mr. Veltri or previous owner.
• This house would be among the safer and least impactful houses in the area
• Variance standard #6 will cause undue hardship to the owner if proposal denied and it will be taking
  the rights of the property. There was discussion on diminution and takings.
• Mr. Houle believed that the owners would be denied the legal use of the property or eliminating the
  right to use the property and the economic value of the property would be significantly lower.
• CRMC report stated allowance for accessory structures without primary use of property. Mr. Houle
  stated it would not be easy to be approved by local zoning.

Scott Rabideau – Professional Wetland Scientist – certified -- background was added to the record as well as hard copy of CV being part of the record.

Mr. Rabideau testified to the following:

• Retained by Mr. Veltri in 2020 for wetland delineation; he explained his method of reviewing
  properties.
• Ms. Silvia confirmed wetland edge so it has been used since that time.
• Explanation of the Preliminary Determination process in which a recommendation not a decision is
  made by CRMC staff.
• Minimum 25’ buffer from CRMP and the Narrow River Special Area Management Plan but not a
  prohibition; variances can be requested.
• Wildlife and wildlife habitat values stating that the lot is dominated by common reeds, phragmites.
  In the buffer zone area, there are some shrubs but mostly Japanese knotweed which is known as an
  invasive plant and mentioned by staff as lesser value.
• The proposed alterations are consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the Coastal
  Resources Management Program, explaining that the project on this property which was located near Type 2 waters (having high scenic value which supports low intensity residential and recreational use) would not have significant impact due to development in the area and will not affect the scenic impact from the water.
• In terms of use conflicts, there would be none as it is clear that the project is a residence in a residential area.
• A precedence would not be set because in this instance there are no cumulative impacts resulting from this project.
• Everything had been done to minimize the variance requests so a reasonable use of this lot would be a single-family residence.
• There is nothing that the applicant did to create the undue hardship on this 1958 pre-platted lot.
• It is an undue hardship for the applicant if the variance request is not granted.

Mr. Garrahy had no further questions.

Mr. Gomez asked Mr. Rabideau about his use of StormTools and the result if a 25-year storm was to hit the lot would be totally engulfed in water. Mr. Rabideau stated that the house was still upland in that instance. Mr. Rabideau stated that StormTools results are a recommendation only and that Mr. Veltri has seen it. Mr. Rabideau stated that he uses StormTools on every coastal lot.

Five-minute break

Public Comment:

Spoke in Objection to Project:

• Patricia Federico
• Christine Brochu
• Jim Roche
• Michelle Hicks
• Ken Ryan
• Ken Ryan
• Martha Callan
• Barbara Rampo
• Craig Wood, NRPA, NRLT

Mr. Garrahy addressed the Council with a closing statement stating that the variance standards were there because there are lots like this. He stated that the applicant had met the burdens of establishing that the six variance criteria have been met and qualified for. Mr. Garrahy stated that if the Council does not approve, there is no economic value to the property, and it is a regulatory takeover.

Ms. Silvia addressed the Council for clarifications:

• While Narragansett Zoning approved, the Narragansett Planning Commission voted against the
  project.
• This would be one of the only elevated houses to be proposed in this area; looking from the water at
  the house you would see an elevated structure.
• The picture taken by Ms. Silvia was not to be taken as a picture of the lot but as an example of tidal
  flooding from the river.
• Rain gardens are typical in Narragansett due to having high ground water tables but once it reaches a
  certain threshold, the rain garden will fail.
• Coastal Hazzard Analysis is guidance but intended to limit and reduce development; also a goal of
  the Narrow River SAMP.
• High flood events would reduce the access to the site, parking, use of the stairs and deck.
• Five-foot limit of disturbance and construction access, space for emergency/safety access,
  maintenance during construction.
• The absolute minimum SAMP buffer has been in place in all of the CRMC SAMPS which goes above and beyond the standard buffer zone in the Redbook. Ms. Silvia stated that she had not seen relief from the SAMP standard granted in her time working for CRMC.
• Phragmites and knotweed dominance are both invasive but phragmites are listed as protected under wetlands section in the program and both of those species are excellent nutrient attenuators. They are thriving on the site due to water quality issues in the area.
• The lot would have no chance to convert to salt marsh if the site was developed.
• Staff concurs that this is the only lot left in the overdeveloped area
• Has spoken to numerous potential buyers and real estate agents over the years, every time advising
  against the significant variances and flooding.
• Section 1.1.10, sea level rise and climate change, requires the Council to proactively plan for and
  adapt to climate change and sea level rise and the associated risk to Rhode Island coastal areas.
• This lot is the only area of existing wildlife habitat in this developed neighborhood.
• It is staff’s opinion that the project does not meet the requirements of the variance request,
  specifically 1.1.7(a)(1); 1.1.7(a)(2), 1.1.7(a)(4); 1.1.7(a)(5); 1.1.7(a)(6).
• Minor variances are often administratively approved by staff.
• Staff still does not support the variance relief and recommends denial of the application.

Chair Coia asked about the commentors/objectors stating if this lot is developed it would adversely affect their property – it would seem to penalize the purchaser of the property because he was the last to try to develop. Ms. Silvia stated that while she could not speak to property value or diminution, it is the only remaining lot for wildlife habitat, functions of a buffer zone. It is important for those reasons, and in its existing condition, it does provide benefit to existing owners of the neighborhood.

Mr. DeSisto spoke to the statement by Mr. Garrahy and Mr. Houle regarding a denial being seen as a regulatory taking. Mr. DeSisto spoke of a case Alegria v. Keeney, RI Supreme Court case from 1997 – DEM denied development on a piece of property that had significant wetlands on the site due to prior knowledge of the site by the developer. Mr. DeSisto stated that there had been previous Preliminary Determination reports on this site.

Mr. Gagnon asked to revisit rain garden and stormwater management component of the application stating that the bottom 4” of the BMP will always be wet and that provides no filtration at all. Mr. Gagnon also expressed concern about the untreated driveway runoff. Ms. Silvia stated that CRMC guidance allows for crushed stone driveway to be pervious and does not require additional treatment. Mr. Gagnon stated that the post-developed condition of the site will produce more contaminated runoff than the undeveloped condition.

Ms. Silvia confirmed for Mr. Gomez that the Special Area Management Plans are additional regulatory development requirements on top of the Redbook or FWWVC regulations – specifically using the term “absolute minimum.”

No further questions from Council to staff. Chair Coia asked for Motion.

Mr. Gomez motioned for the application to be rejected based on the findings of fact, the staff recommendations, the objectors’ input, the applicant’s input, along with the staff rebuttal.

Mr. Gagnon and Ms. Reynolds seconded the motion.

Ms. Reynolds stated that the applicant knew that this was a difficult lot to develop, he had adequate knowledge. Ms. Reynolds stated that she agreed with the staff report.

Chair Coia thanked the staff for their extensive review, the applicant for their presentation and witness testimony, and the public comments. Chair Coia stated that he was swayed by the opinions of staff which were compelling and that he would support the motion.

Roll call vote by Chair Coia:

Mr. Izzi Aye
Mr. Gomez Aye
Mr. Russolino Aye
Mr. Flynn Aye
Mr. Gagnon Aye
Ms. Reynolds Aye
Chair Coia Aye

Motion to deny application was approved.

6. ADJOURN

Motion to adjourn:

Motion: Mr. Russolino
Second: Ms. Reynolds

Motion to adjourn approved on a unanimous voice vote.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:52 p.m.

 

Minutes respectfully submitted,

Lisa A. Turner
Recording Secretary
Present via Zoom Webinar

 

CALENDAR INDEX