In accordance with notice to members of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council, a meeting was held on Tuesday, April 22, 2025 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
Stephen Izzi
Kevin Flynn
Joseph Russolino
Michael Reuter, DPM

Staff Present
Jeffrey M. Willis, Executive Director
Laura Miguel, Deputy Director
Amy Silva, Spv Environmental Scientist
Brian Harrington,
Anthony DeSisto Legal Counsel
Mark Hartman, Assoc Legal Counsel
Lisa Turner, Recording Secretary
Ryan Moore, IT

 

1. CALL TO ORDER

Chair Coia called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m.

2. Review/Action of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting – April 8, 2025

Motion: Mr. Russolino
Second: Mr. Flynn
Motion carried.

3. Subcommittee Reports

None.

4. Staff Reports

Mr. Willis updated the Council of the following:

• Additional Fishermen’s Advisory Board (FAB) Member to confirm
• NOAA Evaluation Section 312 yielded a positive report for the agency
• Emergency Management Exercise attended by CRMC employees as hurricane season begins in June
• URI event for Fishing Community to focus on cable laying issues within Offshore Wind projects

5. Confirmation of Fishermen’s Advisory Board Members:

The CRMC put out a public notice to solicit volunteers from Rhode Island fishing stakeholders regarding the reconstitution of the agency’s Fishermen’s Advisory Board (FAB). Over the course of the solicitation period, CRMC staff received several inquiries from the public, discussed the role of the FAB with each person, and provided additional information as needed. As such, the staff is putting forward the following volunteers, which staff believe are appropriate to carry out the duties of the FAB.

• Carl Berg
• CRMC Staff has had several conversations with Mr. Berg and ask the Council to confirm his membership on the FAM
• Mr. Gagnon made a motion to accept Mr. Berg as a member of the Fishermen’s Advisory Board
• Motion seconded by Mr. Russolino and Mr. Izzi.

Roll call vote by Chair Coia:

Mr. Flynn Aye
Mr. Izzi Aye
Mr. Russolino Aye
Dr. Reuter Aye
Mr. Gagnon Aye
Chair Coia Aye

Motion carried unanimously for the approval of the Fishermen’s Advisory Board members.

6. Enforcement Matter before the Council for Review and Action:

23-0047 ODI REALTY, LLC – Further consideration of alleged violations regarding unauthorized earthwork (filling, removing, and grading) on a coastal feature, construction of a riprap retaining wall on a coastal feature, construction of timber structures on a coastal feature, and cutting of natural buffer zone vegetation and request for an order to restore. If proven, these activities constitute a violation of the Red Book (650-RICR-20- 00-1), specifically CRMP § 1.1.11, § 1.3.1 (C), & § 1.3.1 (G). Located at plat 369, lot 108; 605 Budlong Farm Road, Warwick, RI.

CRMC staff member Brian Harrington addressed the Council stating that the matter had come before the Council at the Tuesday, February 11, 2025 meeting where the Council directed staff to review and respond to a letter from Joseph Casali Engineering. Mr. Harrington stated that staff responded that CRMC could not support what was being proposed and that CRMC could support bringing the site into conformance through activities that had been proposed in CRMC application A2022-08-058 January 26, 2023 revised plan. Mr. Harrington stated that the Council Also directed that after CRMC staff’s response letter to Joseph Casali Engineering, ODI Realty was to return an acceptable plan as soon as possible and well before 60 days. Mr. Harrington informed the Council that CRMC staff had not received any communication from ODI Realty, LLC or their attorney.

Attorney Mary Shekarchi addressed the Council and stated that Mr. Harrington’s accounting of events was correct and that there was some difficulty communicating with her client who was out of the country. Atty Shekarchi stated that they were able to speak with the property owner’s son, as well as a representative of the LLC – they are both prepared to proceed with the recommendation from staff to submit an application that is in line with the previous application submitted. Atty Shekarchi asked the Council for another 45 days to submit the plan. Mr. Casali is trying to schedule a meeting with the abutting property owner’s engineer.

Joseph Casali, RPE, was sworn in and identified himself for the record.

Mr. Casali stated that they were in the process of getting in touch with and coordinating with the neighbor’s engineer, Thomas Nicholson, C&E Engineering, to submit one congruent for remediation and removal of the wall that exists and rebuild as originally filed in January 2023.

Atty DeSisto recommended to the Council to enter the Order to Restore but the stay the entry and enforcement for another 45 days to allow for the two parties to coordinate and present the restoration order. Mr. DeSisto informed the Council that if after 45 days the plans are not submitted, the Restoration Order would become effective at that date.

Mr. Flynn expressed concern that two other parties along the stretch of shoreline are not involved in the current restoration process. Atty Shekarchi stated that there is an effort to reach out to them.
There was discussion by the Council regarding taking action against the contractor who knowingly worked without a CRMC permit on several abutting pieces of property.

Atty DeSisto stated that the ultimate liability lays with the property owner.

Mr. Izzi motioned that the CRMC enter an enforcement order against ODI Realty LLC, stay any imposition of fines, and continue this matter 45 days to allow the staff to review any additional submissions that the applicant is going to make for the remediation of the violation. Mr. Izzi added to the motion that the effect of the enforcement order would be stayed for 45 days and that if no compliance within 45 days, there would be entry.

Mr. Gagnon seconded the motion. Roll call vote by Chair Coia:

Mr. Flynn Aye
Mr. Izzi Aye
Mr. Russolino Aye
Dr. Reuter Aye
Mr. Gagnon Aye
Chair Coia Aye

Motion carried unanimously to issue Enforcement Order against ODI with a stay of 45 days.

7. Applications which have been Out-To-Notice and are before the Council for Review and Action:

2024-04-075 EDON REALTY TRUST -- Construct and maintain a residential boating facility consisting of a 4’ x 100’ fixed pier to a 28’ ramp to an 8’ x 18.75’ float, extending to 72.5’ beyond MLW therefore requesting a variance under 1.3.1D.6.f (3) of the Redbook is required. The standard is 50’ under 1.3.1.D.11.(l). A second variance is required since the facility will be located across a Property Line Extension (PLE) under 1.3.1.11.k of the Redbook 650-RICR-20-00-1. when the standard is a 25’setback from the PLE. Located at plat 89, lot 101, 110; 353 Earle Drive, North Kingstown, RI.

Representation present for the applicant:
Attorney Robert Craven; and,
Kenneth Anderson, PE, who was sworn in and identified himself for the record

Amy Silva, one of the CRMC reviewing staff members, reported to the Council the following:

• Residential boating facility proposed to be located in the West Passage of Narragansett Bay.
• Dimensions are 4’ x 130’ in total length extending 72.5 feet beyond Mean Low Water (MLW)to reach a minimum water depth standard of 18”.
• The facility needs a 22.5’ variance to the 50’ beyond MLW standard.
• A second variance is needed to the property line extension side setback standard of 25’ away from the extended property line. The applicant submitted a written variance request as well as submitting the Professional Land Surveyor plat survey of the lot.
• Many of objections were received during the public notice period including one from the Town of North Kingstown Town Council.
• The true abutter to this lot is Earle Drive or the Town of North Kingstown.
• Objection concerns are user conflict with nearby beach for boating, shellfishing, swimming, recreational craft use, etc.
• Objections have been addressed in the CRMC Staff report.
• While concerns for user conflicts are valid, docks are an acceptable and permittable use in Type II waters.
• The facility is appropriately situated more than 50’ from the nearby mooring field.
• Intrusion over the property line is minimal – approximately 42’.
• It is staff’s review and opinion that the objections do not rise to the criteria of a substantive objection.
• CRMC Staff believes that the applicant has met the burden of proof for both of the variances requested.
• Should the Council determine that the objections are not substantive and concurs with staff regarding the variances, staff has not objection to the approval of this application.

Attorney Craven representing applicant addressed the Council stating that the original engineer on the project had retired and that Kenneth Anderson was asked to be the expert witness to explain any concerns about these proceedings from the perspective of the applicant.

Atty Craven stated that he had reviewed the staff report and had no objections to the findings of the reviewing CRMC staff members. Atty Craven stated that the proposed facility is appropriate and consistent with the law.

With no further comment from Mr. Anderson, Atty Craven stated that they concurred with report and rest on the recommendations of the staff report.

Mr. Gagnon asked how many boats would be docked and what size of boats? Atty Craven stated that it is for one residence to one boat and maybe an occasional visitor. From the audience, Ms. Rosetti (property owner) stated that she only had a small boat at the moment.

Mr. Anderson confirmed for Mr. Flynn that the dock would be usable all day with 18” of water at MLW.
Mr. Flynn asked about Save The Bay’s comments. Ms. Silva stated that Save The Bay asked CRMC to ensure lateral access is maintained.

Ms. Silva explained the travel of the applications submitted by Edon Realty prior to the sale of one of the properties.

Ms. Silva confirmed that the shape of the parcel as well as the shoreline is problematic in terms of property line extensions and that it extends into the Town property approximately 42’.

Ms. Silva confirmed that the Town of North Kingstown was the effected abutter and that they chose not to submit a letter of no objection. Ms. Silva stated that the Town of North Kingstown’s letter of objection reflected many of the concerns of the beach club members.

Nothing further from Council or from Mr. Craven.

Public Comment – All commenters were sworn in and identified for the record.

Sean Henseler – objection – dock would interrupt the use of 25% of the beach which is heavily used by swimmers, floaters, and clammers in the warmer months. Convenient mooring field for boat. Beach Association was created to take care of beach. Attorney Craven is the state representative for North Kingstown.

Chris Mulhearn – objection – uses the beach everyday during the summer and it is always busy with folks of all ages who swim, kayak and have great respect for the water. The introduction of a dock would fundamentally alter the manner in which they use the beach. The NK Harbor Commission and the NK Town Council recommended not moving forward.

Lincoln Munroe – objection – 37-year resident of Lone Tree Point and member of the resident association (not a beach club) that owns the property around the beach itself. The area has traditionally been a breeding ground for crustaceans and bivalves as well as horseshoe crabs.

Jim Roehm – objection – 26-year resident of neighborhood. The NK Conservation has also issued a no confidence statement regarding the proposal. Expressed concern regarding location of proposed dock and the safety risk with boating that close to the beach.

Ann Munroe – objection – 37-year resident of Lone Tree Point. Expressed concerns for safety due to the direction of the movement of the tide which would bring people in close proximity to the proposed dock. Expressed concern that Atty Craven might in be conflict of interest.

Barbara Perigo – objection – Proposed dock will have serious effect on the area introducing boating so close to the beach area.

Chris Fullam – objection – As a boater of all types of boats (power and non-motor) he sees the proposed dock as a big safety problem. Cannot control what boat will be dock at the facility – especially if the house is used a seasonal rental.

Heather Houle – objection – Greatly oppose for all reasons stated.

Bradley Kettlety – objection – Treasurer of the Lone Tree Point Beach Association which is serious in their mission. Meet to discuss important issues for the neighborhood. Questioned liability if someone gets hurt. Discussion with Mr. Izzi regarding water depth.

Aaron Ritter – objection – Talked about the neighborhood beach association and bylaws that are supposed to be followed. Wanted to make sure everyone is on the same page.

Gary Robberson – objection – Proposed dock would be perpendicular to the beach, parallel to the beach. This is not the property to put a dock on. Concerned about the safety of beach users.

Attorney Craven to Kenneth Anderson

At the request of Atty Craven, Mr. Anderson talked about the following:

• The mooring field is seaward of the terminus of the dock by 55’ and that a boat leaving the dock can navigate around the mooring field to get to Lone Tree Point into navigable waters without going through the swimming area.
• Convergence of the property lines – lines converge into this point locking in Ms. Rosetti’s access to state federal navigable waters. The dock was sited 26’ in compliance with the standard 25’ offset from one of the property lines to minimize the variance to just one. The dock was situated closer to the property line that did not have the potential for a boating facility in the future.
• The Town GIS database has no taxable lot that represented this evening as the Lone Tree Point Beach Association. The Town’s plat map shows Mean High Water coming up to Earl Drive, basically representing that everything seaward of the road is below Mean High water. The beach lot is not owned by anyone.
• Previous applications submitted to CRMC for this proposed dock were withdrawn by the Applicant and at staff suggestion, it was relocated to a more plausible location.

No further questions by Atty Craven to Mr. Anderson.

Ms. Silva confirmed for Chair Coia that after hearing testimony and comments, her opinion was still the same that the objections did not rise to the level of substantive also confirmed that her recommendation had not changed.

Mr. Flynn asked if minimizing the applications variances, is it increasing the potential conflict with other uses.

Ms. Silva stated that it could be possible to some extent. If the applicant had sited the dock further to the east, individual lots who have their own ability to request a dock – would have negatively impacted the right for them to have a dock. They wanted to have one variance instead of two.

Mr. Roehm asked if the Council would allow rebuttal from objectors of applicant’s rebuttal. Atty DeSisto stated there would be no rebuttal of the applicant’s rebuttal.

Chair Coia asked if the Council was in posture for motion. No answer.

Mr. Flynn motioned to deny the application based on conflict of existing uses pointed out by the people here and based on geometry difficulty on the site.

KF – Motion to deny the application based on conflict pointed out by the people here, based on geometry difficulty on the site.

Mr. Izzi seconded the motion to deny.

Mr. Russolino pointed out that the staff did an incredible job in seeing that the applicant met the burden of proof for variances and that he has never voted against staff recommendation, but the testimony was overwhelming concerning safety, navigation habitat impact, public access and lateral access. For those reasons he would be voting in favor of motion.

No further discussion.

Roll call vote by Chair Coia:

Mr. Flynn Aye
Mr. Izzi Aye
Mr. Russolino Aye
Dr. Reuter Nay
Mr. Gagnon Nay
Chair Coia Nay

Motion to deny fails.

Dr Reuter motioned to approve the application based the staff report in terms of findings of fact. Mr. Gagnon seconded the motion.

No discussion.

Roll call vote by Chair Coia:

Mr. Flynn Nay
Mr. Izzi Nay
Mr. Russolino Nay
Dr. Reuter Aye
Mr. Gagnon Aye
Chair Coia Aye

Motion to approve fails.

Atty DeSisto stated that the application doesn’t pass; there is no approval.

Chair Coia stated that the application has not been approved and has not been denied.

Questions on what happens in this case.

Atty DeSisto stated that based on past cases, the applicant would have to file another application, and staff would look at what they submit at that time.

This iteration of the application does not have the support.

8. ADJOURN

Motion to adjourn:

Motion: Mr. Izzi
Second: Mr. Flynn

Motion to adjourn approved on a unanimous voice vote.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:02 pm.

 

Minutes respectfully submitted,

Lisa A. Turner
Recording Secretary

 

CALENDAR INDEX