Shores lot denied wetlands alterations, septic variance
By Dotti Farrington

The state's top environmental agency denied the long-standing application of David and Marina Thurston of Saunderstown to alter wetlands on their Jamestown Shores property to build a home, it was reported last week at the Town council meeting.

The Thurstons applied to alter the wetlands to build a two-bedroom home on a 7,000 square foot lot on Seaside Drive, near the town beach at the Shores. They also had applied for 12 variances to enable them to locate an individual sewage disposal system (ISDS) on the lot. The Thurstons have 30 days, until mid-April, to appeal the ruling to the department, and if the denial is upheld, they could then appeal in court.

The Department of Environmental Managment's Office of Water Resources Permitting Section for the Freshwater Wetlands Program denied the application based on information submitted Jan. 5, 2005, for the wetlands alteration and on information submitted for the most recent ISDS variances. The original application was filed in 2001. Previous owners of the property were also unsuccessful in acquiring state approvals prior to 2001. The Thurstons were represented by engineer Joseph Frisella.

The DEM said they received nine public comments in opposition to the project, including one from the Town Council in 2004 that the DEM dismissed because of procedural defects about notice to the Thurstons by the town when it considered and voted on its opposition. As a result, the town was barred by a court decision from acting against the wetlands application, but was allowed to file an engineering study about the impact of proposed variances.

The DEM judged the remaining eight letters to not constitute a substantive opposition requiring a public hearing. The department explained that it denied the Thurston application on the basis of a departmental study of the property. The study stated that several irreparable changes and damages to the environment would have resulted from proposed alterations.

The study covered about one tenth of an acre, or about half of the lot size that was part of the perimeter wetland and part of an area subject to storm water flow. The proposed project would "reduce the subject wetland ecosystem's habitat values by eliminating food, escape cover, shelter, breeding sites, resting sites, brood rearing sites, and travel corridors, thereby reducing the subject wetlands' abilities to satisfy the needs of certain wildlife species," the DEM decision stated.

Alterations would "eliminate the majority of the perimeter wetland and its associated habitat values on the subject site and disturb wildlife movement from the subject swamp to adjacent areas in the vicinity of the shoreline" of West Passage Narragansett Bay, according to the DEM explanation of its denial.

The DEM also determined that the proposed dwelling would be located within three feet of the subject swamp, such that permanent disturbance factors (human presence, human noise, lights associated with human activity) would affect wildlife.

The DEM's finding that the ISDS (septic system) "will cause a negative effect on the water quality of the subject wetland," was also part of the decision process.

The DEM said it found, "The applicant has not demonstrated that those impacts which are unavoidable have been reduced to the maximum extent possible… The applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed project is in compliance" with rules and criteria.

The DEM said "The proposed project will contribute to adverse cumulative impacts and undesirable alteration to freshwater wetlands… The proposed alterations are therefore inconsistent with the best public interests and public policy."

The departmental findings and decision were detailed by Martin D. Wencek, supervisor in the DEM wetlands program.

The DEM study by Dan Koval, wetland and animal ecologist, said the wetlands on the Thurston property contain many species of amphibians, birds, mammals, invertebrates, reptiles and other wildlife. He specified that the property is home for wood thrushes which have the highest priority for protection; and such forest nesters as Northern flicker, scarlet tanager, great crested flycatcher, Eastern towhee and rose breasted grosbeak that all are listed as high priority to protect.

Koval said the Thurstons' report on the ecosystem was incomplete, inadequate and without detail data to support its claim that the alteration would have "minimal impact." In addition to his own fieldwork, Koval cited seven studies and about 30 references about ways that wetland alteration would hamper wildlife movement and habitat.

The DEM ecologist emphasized that the wetlands "do provide for active and passive recreation values,' contrary to the report of the Thurstons' experts. He also noted that the proposed replacement trees "are not adequate."

"The magnitude of harm is unknown," he concluded, aside from his own findings and documentation of at least 24 species during two mornings of observation.

The Jamestown Shores Association has been opposing the Thurston plan because of multiple groundwater issues affecting the relatively small lots in the development over the years. The Shores development is considered an environmentally fragile area.

Engineering for the ISDS puts part of the system, called a bottomless sand filter septic system, within the footprint of the house.

Among the 12 requested variances were distances from wells on the Thurston lot and a neighbor's abutting lot. The abutters, Joan and Joseph Regan, objected to all 12 variances. Their well would be 85-feet from the Thurstons' septic tank, if the application were approved. State law specifies the distance must be at least 100-feet. The Regans said the septic field would be five feet from their front yard.

The Regans cited ways the application would directly affect them adversely, and would impact other area properties, the town beach and the West Passage of Narragansett Bay if the Thurston plan were allowed.

The Thurstons' lot is classified as unbuildable and that was the reason they bought it for $24,000 about five years ago and it has been assessed and taxed as unbuildable, according to the Regans.

Town and Shores leaders are working to update the town's groundwater protection ordinance that deals with ISDS installations.

The Shores Association, currently under the leadership of Charlotte and F. John Zarlengo, has monitored local and state activities.

The Zarlengos wrote in a letter to DEM Director W. Michael Sullivan that the Thurstons were proposing "pure speculative development of an important (water) recharge area." They documented how the storm water channels were destroyed some years ago and how the property otherwise illegally "was stripped of vegetation, the grading changed, trees and roots extensively removed, and trees sprayed with herbicide."

The Zarlengos said it would be "unconscionable" if the Thurston proposal were allowed when the Shores area is experiencing so many environmental problems.