In accordance with notice to members of the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council, a meeting was held on Tuesday, March 10, 2026 at 6:00 p.m. located at the Administration Building, Conference Room A, One Capitol Hill, Providence, RI.

Members Present
Raymond Coia, Chair
Patricia Reynolds
Ronald Gagnon, DEM
Micheal Reuter, DPM
Joseph Russolino
Steven Izzi
Kevin Flynn

Staff Present
Laura Miguel, Deputy Director
Richard Lucia, Environmental Engineer IV
Mason Sherman, Marine Infrastructure/Dredge Coor
Sean Feeley, Environmental Scientist II
Tom Fitzpatrick, Environmental Engineer III
Laura Dwyer, Education/Information Coordinator
Ryan Moore, IT
Lisa Turner, Recording Secretary

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

Minutes held over and will be heard at the next meeting, Tuesday, March 24, 2026.

3. Subcommittee Reports

Ms. Miguel: The ROW Subcommittee met in Westerly last evening to continue hearing the Spring Avenue Extension hearing. The CRMC Staff is working to put together a more aggressive schedule to keep things moving.

4. Staff Reports

Ms. Miguel:

• Director Willis is at the State house testifying on two bills:
  • H7677 a distinction between offshore energy cables and telecommunication cables; and it reiterates the General Assembly’s authority over submerged land leases greater than 25 acres.
  • H8216 proposes that Council staff revisit water type classification 1-4. The bill would create a 7 member advisory committee which would be established by 01/01/2027 with two years to come out with a report
• Director Willis and I were in Washing DC last week at a Program Manager’s meeting which included all of the coastal programs from throughout the United States.

5. Applications which have been Out To Notice for 30-Days and are before the Council for Review and Action:

2025-12-033 BDPS LLC -- Retain temporary improvements to a work trestle structure located over tidal waters and establish a new structural perimeter limit (SPL) around the structure. Located at plat 16, lot 1-1; 100 Water Street, East Providence, RI.

Mr. Sherman gave a brief overview of the application to the Council explaining that the applicant is asking to make permanent, the temporary improvements to the work trestle that were done through the Washington Bridge demolition permit and also to establish a structural perimeter limit (SPL) around the trestle. Mr. Sherman stated that the improvements will support blue economy and independent businesses.

Mr. Sherman stated that staff’s opinion is that this project complies to the CRMP and recommend approval with standard stipulations and one additional stipulation that the work trestle structure shall be used only for loading and offloading vessels. No vessels are to remain berthed at this structure for more than a 12-hour period. Mr. Sherman confirmed that the applicant agreed to this stipulation.

There were no questions to Mr. Sherman from the Council.

Sworn in and identified themselves for the record:
Charles Booth, III, property owner and applicant
Craig Woods, Wetlands Biologist, Jacobs Engineering
Donald B. Costello, Engineer, Greater Compliance

Mr. Woods addressed the Council and stated that the application was straight forward and are available to answer questions.

There were no questions to the applicant from the Council.

No one from public to comment on the application.

Council Discussion and Motion:

• Motion: Mr. Izzi motioned, based on the staff report, staff testimony and brief comments from the applicant, for the approval of the application-- to include staff stipulation set on the record and in the staff report.
• Seconded: Mr. Gagnon

Chair Coia did a roll call vote:
Mr. Flynn Aye
Mr. Izzi Aye
Mr. Russolino Aye
Mr. Gagnon Aye
Ms. Reynolds Aye
Chair Coia Aye

• Outcome: Motion carried on a unanimous vote; application approved.

2025-02-014 JOHN & AIDAN MacSWEENEY-- Construct and maintain a 25’ x 40’ single family dwelling with a driveway, deck and stormwater management system. The RI Coastal Resources Management Program (RICRMP) requires a 50-foot naturally vegetated buffer zone (Section 1.1.11) and a 25-foot construction setback (Section 1.1.9). The proposed dwelling is surrounded on three sides by coastal feature. A buffer zone of 25-feet is proposed on one portion of the coastal feature. No buffer zone is proposed on the remaining area of coastal feature. No construction setback is proposed. The application proposes a buffer variance of 50% to 100%. A setback variance of 100% is proposed (Section 1.1.7). The coastal features at the site consist of coastal wetland on the south and west sides of the site and an erosive coastal bluff on the east side. Located at plat 356, lots 162, 163, 204; Arlington Avenue, Warwick, RI.

CRMC staff member Sean Feeley gave a brief overview of the application for the Council stating that:

The applicant proposes to build a three-story, 1,oo0 sf household, to be serviced by municipal sewer and water.

The project included a pervious driveway, stormwater management system and grade changes;

The structure would include a 25’ x 12’ deck with an access stairway.

The foundation would be 12’ from the coastal feature at the nearest point and the deck would be 2’ from the coastal feature.

A buffer zone of 50’ is required

The applicant is requesting a buffer varying from 25’ to 0’ representing variances from 50% to 100%.

A setback of 25’ is required from the inland edge of the buffer zone; the applicant proposes no setback due to grading and the stormwater management system.

Mr. Feeley explained the importance of the requirements of buffer zones and setbacks stating protection of coastal habitats, protection of coastal wetlands and providing flood control as a few. The application states that there would be no environmental impacts with the use of silt fencing and planting screening vegetation. CRMC Staff opinion is that there would be significant negative environmental impacts.

Mr. Feeley stated that the project site is prone to flooding at high tide and storm events as it is located in a VE17 flood zone.

Mr. Feeley stated that conditions at the site pose significant challenges to development, with the coastal feature on one side of the site and on the other side is an eroding coastal bluff showing significant land loss between 1939 and 2003 per CRMC Shoreline change maps.

Should the Council approve the project, staff request a deed restriction against further development activities at the site, such as buffer management, future expansion and construction. Alternatively, should the Council deny the project, an application for reasonable evaluation might likely be supported by staff.

No questions from the Council for Mr. Feeley.

Sworn in and identified for the record, property co-owners:
John MacSweeney
Aidan MacSweeney

Mr. J. MacSweeney addressed the Council and began presentation by explaining his process prior to purchasing the property, which included visiting the neighborhood and observing the houses in the area, and the proximity of the houses to the water some of which were on wet lots and the houses built on pilings. Mr. MacSweeney stated that he visited the Warwick Building Dept and asked about the permitting process and was told about the CRMC process. Mr. MacSweeney stated that he was told the elevation on this lot was higher than other lots. Mr. MacSweeney purchased the lot with his son for $160,000.

Mr. J. MacSweeney then informed the Council that he spread loam on the property and received a notice of violation from CRMC and was in a Consent Agreement with CRMC.

Mr. MacSweeney explained his building permit process through the City of Warwick stating that he combined lots to meet Zoning requirements which gave him 7.5 feet closer to the street.

Mr. MacSweeney finished presentation and asked that the application be approved.

Mr. Feeley addressed the Council again stating that when the application was first received by CRMC, it was deemed deficient and that as currently designed, the application would need to go before the Council as a recommendation for denial as it was so variant and the conflicts with the intent of the program. Mr. Feeley stated that he felt that the site is so variant, being surrounded by a coastal feature, even reducing the scale of the project would not meet the requirements of the program.

Chair Coia asked if there was anywhere on the property that could sustain a structure. Mr. Feeley stated that he could not see any way to put a dwelling on this site without a negative impact to water quality and threat to the surrounding area.

Chair Coia asked if there may be some other permittable use. Mr. Feeley stated there could be recreational use and parking.

Mr. MacSweeney suggested shoreline protection to keep the property from eroding.

Mr. DeSisto brought both Mr. Feeley and Mr. MacSweeney back to the present application.

Chair Coia asked for Public Comment.

Christopher Dodge of Save the Bay was sworn in and identified himself for the record. Mr. Dodge explained that he submitted a written letter of objection which was part of the Council record and that most of the comments he would make would mirror the written letter of objection. Mr. Dodge urged the Council to deny the application.

Mr. Flynn stated that he supported the staff’s position to recommend denial of application and motioned for such. Mr. Gagnon seconded the motion.

Chair Coia asked if Mr. Flynn would be amenable to adding “without prejudice” to the motion.

Mr. Flynn asked if the applicant would be able to reapply.

Chair Coia stated that the applicant could reapply with a project that is significantly different.

Mr. Flynn amended the motion to include “without prejudice”

Mr. Gagnon seconded the amended motion.

Council Discussion and Motion:
Motion: Kevin Flynn made a motion to deny application without prejudice
Seconded: Mr. Gagnon

Chair Coia did a roll call vote:
Mr. Flynn Aye
Mr. Izzi Aye
Mr. Russolino Aye
Dr. Reuter Aye
Mr. Gagnon Aye
Ms. Reynolds Aye
Chair Coia Aye

Outcome: Motion to deny the application without prejudice was approved.

Short break

6. Administrative Application before the Full Council for review and action:

2025-10-075 Chrones Family Revocable Trust -- To reconstruct a revetment on an undeveloped barrier beach abutting Type 1 waters by exchanging existing stone with 350-400 tons of larger armor stones, up to 7.2 foot in diameter, within the footprint of the existing revetment (detailed in Assent 1993-03-062). Work also involves removing and replacing in-kind undermined patio sections and concrete beach access stairs. Located at plat 175, lot 17, 25 Atlantic Avenue in Westerly, RI.

Mr. DeSisto gave a brief summary to the Council stating that they would need to determine whether this project should be deemed as maintenance based on CRMC regulations. If the Council determines that the proposed project is not deemed maintenance based on CRMC regulations, then the application is denied as the proposed project would then be prohibited.

Mr. Lucia gave a brief overview of the application stating that the project is located on a site where the coastal feature is an undeveloped barrier beach with a rip-rock revetment is its secondary controlling factor. Mr. Lucia gave a brief history of the applications including the most recent assent for restacking the revetment by allowing for 50 tons of smaller stones to be brought in which could be projectiles during extreme storm events.

Mr. Lucia explained that the maintenance application before the Council is to exchange the current riprap stone for up to 400 tons of stone, 7 feet in diameter each. Mr. Lucia explained that the design engineer stated that the stone replacement is necessary as a requirement in accordance with the Army Corps of Engineer regulations. Mr. Lucia stated that while it may be a requirement for new construction, it is not a requirement of the RICRMP for maintenance.

Mr. Lucia stated that it is staff’s opinion as well as the CRMC’s Executive Director, that the proposed work does not qualify as a maintenance activity; therefore, could be presented to the Council for a decision on this matter.

Mr. Lucia expressed other staff concerns regarding the project stating that the larger stones would be a greater reflective surface increasing erosion in front of the wall blocking lateral access.

Mr. Lucia stated that there were objections to this project as proposed from Save The Bay, the Town of Westerly, and members of the community.

Mr. Lucia stated that the staff’s conclusion is that project be denied.

Council Questions to staff:

Mr. Izzi asked what specifically makes the project not maintenance. Mr. Lucia stated that the increase in size and scope of the stone is beyond what is considered maintenance activity. Mr. Lucia confirmed that the footprint remains the same, but the stone greatly increase in size. Mr. Lucia stated that with the large size stones, there would be less voids, more reflective surfaces creating more erosion and the disappearance of lateral access.

Mr. Lucia also explained that the site abuts Type 1 waters and it’s an undeveloped barrier. The project would be prohibited.

Mr. Lucia confirmed for Mr. Flynn that the tonnage of stone would not change just the size of the stone.

Further discussion was had regarding the possibility of the larger stones having a more reflective base to the wall and less voids thus creating more erosion on the beach face cutting off lateral access.

Mr. Fitzpatrick added that the construction of the wall would be a keyed-in revetment, not a dumped revetment, adding to the discussion of the more erosive situation at the base of the wall. Mr. Fitzpatrick also added that the project was started under the previous assent 2024-10-047, however, they infilled with small stone which was not allowed in that assent.

Mr. Russolino asked about the lateral access problem at high tide in which it is impassible.

Again, Mr. DeSisto advised the Council to look at the application to determine if the proposed activity can be considered a maintenance activity. Mr. DeSisto read the CRMC definition of maintenance activity.

Again, the CRMC staff confirmed that all other maintenance permits granted for this site were restacking of existing stone as maintenance.

Sworn in and identified for the record are:
James Chrones
Cheryl Chrones
Tom Principe, Engineer, Principe Engineering
Gus Kreuzkamp, Engineer, VHB
Peter Skwirz, Attorney

Attorney Skwirz began by stating that he was in agreement with Legal Counsel in that the Council needed to determine if the activity that is being proposed in repairing the existing revetment by changing out the stone without increasing the footprint, not increasing the height. The applicant’s position is that it does not change the scope of the revetment therefore it is a maintenance activity.

Attorney Skwirz explained the history of the house which was built in 1920’s and the existing revetment has been there since the 1940’s with various forms of maintenance to the revetment over the years. Attorney Skwirz stated that his clients purchased the home recently and in 2024 received a maintenance permit for restacking the stone but their goal was to built the revetment to Army Corps of Engineer standards to stop the collapsing of the revetment. When the project began and they dug into the soil they realized that they couldn’t build within the footprint with the same size stone so they stopped the project and returned to CRMC to request relief from the condition of same size stone.

Attorney Skwirz stated that through discussions with staff regarding the stone limitations, staff mentioned that they could not support relief from the 50 ton limit as exceeding the 50-ton limit would change the application from maintenance to a prohibited activity (Type 1 waters). Attorney Skwirz stated that there is no regulation in the Red Book regarding stone size.

Attorney Skwirz stated that there is no significant alteration to the design, purpose or structure and that all they were doing is increasing the stability of the revetment. Attorney Skwirz also stated that there would be no more smaller stone acting as projectiles during extreme storms and that there would not be a risk of erosion based on their engineer’s report nor would there be a danger of the wall collapsing thereby cutting off lateral access.

Attorney Skwirz introduced Engineer Gus Kreuzkamp as a witness, and Mr. Kreuzkamp gave an overview of his education, experience and his knowledge of the history of the revetment.

Mr. Kreuzkamp stated he began working on this project in 2024 and explained that first he researched the previous permits and visited the site to inspect what was there. Mr. Kreuzkamp stated that from his experience, it was difficult to think about another maintenance permit of restacking stone which would require another permit within two years due to the shape and size of the stones. Mr. Kreuzkamp stated that he used the ACOE standards as design reference. Mr. Kreuzkamp explained the method of an appropriate design is using a bedding layer with the correct size stones as foundation, so the structure won’t fail. Mr. Kreuzkamp talked about a 1:1.5 slope providing less reflection creating less erosion.

Mr. Kreuzkamp confirmed for Chair Coia that he was certain regarding the milder slope creating less reflection and less erosion.

Mr. Kreuzkamp confirmed that there were no differences in design between the 2024 permit and this application just the size of the stone.

There was further discussion regarding the size of the stone and how the size would create a difference in the project.

Mr. Fitzpatrick confirmed that he had visited the site after the 2024 permit was issued and construction had begun. Mr. Fitzpatrick talked about the nonconformity of the work be performed and asked for the construction to stop.

Discussion on the water Type designation (Type 1 water) in regard to the Red Book regulations and revetments abutting Type 1 waters.

Attorney Kwirz added that the tonnage proposed is only a change of 11% of stones that make up the structure.

Present for public comment:

Anthony Palazzolo was sworn in and identified for the record.

Mr. Palazzolo came before the Council to object to any change in public access.

Chris Dodge, Save The Bay – sworn in and identified for record.

Mr. Dodge came before the Council to object on behalf of Save The Bay stating that the proposed project is outside the scope of a maintenance permit. Mr. Dodge agreed with staff that the proposed project would constitute needing a new assent and therefore, it would be prohibited on an undeveloped barrier beach next Type 1 waters.

Mr. Fitzpatrick gave a final statement saying that the plans that were approved in the 2024 permit were changed through stipulations and that some of the work being done was not permitted and they were not permitted to bring in new stone.

Attorney Skwirz gave a closing statement talking about the definition of a maintenance application, that there would only be an 11% difference in stone, and an option of a gentler slope. Mr. Skwirz disagreed with Mr. Fitzpatrick’s assessment that the plans used were not approved.

SI very sympathetic to applicant’s position, designed to 75 year old standards. Confined by rules and regulations of CRMC one of which prohibits new structures on type one waters.

Council Discussion and Motion:

Motion: Mr. Izzi motioned, based on staff report and testimony produced by the applicant, staff and public comment and on the limited issue, to deny the application as the evidence presented that this is not a maintenance application it would be a new revetment.

Seconded: Mr. Flynn

Chair Coia did a roll call vote:
Mr. Flynn Aye
Mr. Izzi Aye
Mr. Russolino Aye
Dr. Reuter Aye
Mr. Gagnon Aye
Ms. Reynolds Aye
Chair Coia Aye

• Outcome: Motion to deny the application was approved.

7. Request for Executive Session pursuant to RIGL § 42-46-5 (a)(2), litigation updates on the following cases: (1) Quidnessett Country Club v. CRMC cases; (2) Corbett v. CRMC; (3) Stilts, LLC v. CRMC.

Motion to Enter Executive Session:

• Motion: Dr. Reuter
• Seconded: Mr. Flynn

Motion carried on unanimous voice vote.

Motion to seal the minutes:

• Motion: Mr. Izzi
• Seconded: Dr, Reuter

Motion carried on unanimous voice vote.

8. Action on items discussed in Executive Session

No motion – Executive Session for informational purposes only

9. ADJOURN

Motion to adjourn:
Motion: Mr. Izzi
Second: Mr. Flynn

Motion to adjourn approved on a unanimous voice vote.

The meeting was adjourned at 6:30 pm.

 

Minutes respectfully submitted,
Lisa A. Turner, Recording Secretary

 

CALENDAR INDEX