NEWS

Neighbor questions CRMC approval of home planned for flood zone

By JOHN HOWELL
Posted 4/6/22

Jeanne Mutokyle has been looking out at a Cat in the yard next door for more than a year. She can’t miss it. It hasn’t moved. It hasn’t purred. She would just as soon have it stay …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in
NEWS

Neighbor questions CRMC approval of home planned for flood zone

Posted

Jeanne Mutokyle has been looking out at a Cat in the yard next door for more than a year. She can’t miss it. It hasn’t moved. It hasn’t purred. She would just as soon have it stay that way, but that’s not likely to happen.

The Cat, a Caterpillar, belongs to the Rivard Construction Co. that is owned and operated by Paul Rivard. The lot that it sits on is at the end of Samuel Gorton Avenue in Riverview. Mutokyle’s house is to the west and on the east is a sandy beach looking out on Narragansett Bay.  Mutokyle has an unobstructed view of the bay but that will change if Rivard builds a single-family home on the site. Plans for the house are currently being reviewed by the City Building Department.

With 39 miles of shoreline, the city building department and council members have seen their share of battles between neighbors over plantings and projects that obstruct views. This could be classified as another one of those, only this time, questions are being raised over how the Coastal Resources Management Council and the Department of Environmental Management could grant approval for the house in the first place.

Mutokyle has brought suit calling on Superior Court to reverse the decision.

“Every program and model offered by the CRMC for determining appropriateness for building at this location shows that this is not appropriate for building. Short and long-term impacts to coastal environments, the future owners of the house and parcel, as well as the homeowners in the nearby community will be adverse,” reads the appeal.

Indeed, the elevation of the property – eight feet above the high tide water line – and its proximity to wetlands and a stream raise questions.

The property is in the VE16 flood zone, meaning that habitable new construction must be at least 16 feet above mean high tide.

According to plans filed with the building department, the house Rivard has designed would be on 19 foot piers with garage and non-living space on the ground level. The living area would be in what customarily would be the second floor. This is a common design for homes in flood-prone areas such as Conimicut Point and with newer homes on Warwick Neck Cove. The living area and the utilities are above the flood zone.

The property has a long history of potential development. In 2010, the Planning Board approved the merger of two lots to create the site.  The following year, DEM granted approval of a septic system.

City records show Rivard bought the property in 2018 and that he was granted a renewal of the septic permit in 2018. More recently, DEM approved an extension of its septic system agreement until June 29 of this year.

Mutokyle feels the project has been rammed through.

“Although we requested a hearing,” she wrote in an email, “though proper channels and using a professional wetland biologist, CRMC approved a coastal permit very quickly and without regard to our substantial objections. CRMC ignored the wetlands that are feet to the rear of this property, a continuous brook that flows directly into the bay.”

In her email, Mutokyle said, “The perc pipe, approved by DEM, is under water more than it is not. DEM has also ignored repeated inquiries to the unmarked/ unapproved diesel container and CAT that has been sitting on this property/ in water - for over a year.”

Mutokyle said Wednesday that the container of diesel fuel has been removed but the CAT is still there.

Mutokyle retained Ecosystem Solutions, Inc. of Warwick to conduct a study of the site.

In his report, wetlands scientist Brandon B. Faneuf, M.S. PWS, RPSS, CWB, CPESC, writes that the CRMC did not have complete information for its review and that an  “unidentified wetland may be adversely impacted by the construction of a single-family house, and moreover, the dynamic between the subject Property and the unidentified wetland could adversely impact development of the Property in the short and long-term.”

He said the property holds water during and after large storms and sheds water onto Samuel Gorton Avenue.

In his conclusion he writes, “A single-family house on a lot that is expected to flood with water during large(r) storms is not a tenable situation, even if the house is built on pilings. It is my opinion that the neighborhood is already over-capacity and the cumulative impact of more structures within the V-Zone will have not only adverse impacts on coastal resources, but on structures already present by deflecting water and waves onto adjacent properties. Further, during even nuisance storm flooding, it is conceivable that water from Narragansett Bay and the adjacent wetlands (including the unidentified wetland to the north) will inundate the subject Property.”

He adds, “Every program and model offered by the CRMC for determining appropriateness for building at this location shows that this is not appropriate for building. Short and long-term impacts to coastal environments, the future owners of the house and parcel, as well as the homeowners in the nearby community will be adverse.”

Accompanying Mutokyle’s email is an album of photographs showing the property flooded during various storms. Water stands two and three feet deep in some sections of the site with waves rolling in from the bay.

The DEM was made aware of Mutokyle’s concerns and sent copies of the photos.

“DEM’s Office of Water Resources looked at aerial photos going back multiple years and although they saw the brook at the rear of the lot, the photos show no water on the lot. From that evidence, we can reliably hypothesize that these photos you included below were probably taken during or after rain events and the lot probably has poor drainage. But that does not make it wetlands,” DEM spokesman Michael Healey wrote in response to the Beacon’s inquiry.

Councilman Ed Ladouceur said he is following up on the complaints of two constituents.

“There’s a lot of questions on that property,” he said. From his preliminary review, Ladouceur questioned the size of the proposed house and if it meets setbacks. He said that the CRMC approval was granted on the premise that the house would be tied into the sewers, but while the construction of Bayside sewers is underway it’s going to be 18 months if not longer before they would be accessible to Samuel Gorton Avenue homeowners.  And he notes the inconsistency of the DEM action renewing approval of a septic system when the CRMC approval is based on sewers.  He also asks why DEM is renewing approval. He said if the permit expired then the developer would be required to start the process all over again and reapply.

On the other hand, if the plans meet approval and state requirements are satisfied, then there’s nothing he can do.

 “If he can do a home within the law and building code, it is what it is,” he said.

Asked about the project, Rivard said he didn’t care to comment, “because it is in litigation.”

He added, “I would like to build as soon as I can.”

homes, flood zone

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here