Quidnessett Country Club has asked state coastal regulators to ease development restrictions along its shoreline after being fined for building an illegal seawall in a sensitive marsh area. A meeting scheduled for Tuesday afternoon on the proposed redesignation was cancelled. (Janine L. Weisman/Rhode Island Current)
The embattled Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council is awash in criticism again — not for a controversial decision, but for the lack of one.
In a Nov. 25 email to the council, also shared on its website, Save the Bay Executive Director Topher Hamblett accused the panel of coastal regulators of “political favoritism and abuse of power.”
A council subcommittee was scheduled to hold a hearing at 4 p.m. Tuesday on Quidnessett Country Club’s application to ease development restrictions for its waterfront property in North Kingstown. But the meeting was cancelled, extending the saga over an illegal seawall built along the club’s shoreline nearly two years ago.
Hamblett alleges the delays are intentional.
“The Council’s months-long series of delays gives the country club an unfair economic advantage over law-abiding coastal landowners and businesses who spend money and time applying for permits to comply with the law,” he wrote in the email.
“The Council is opening the door for more violations and sending the message that it is better to ask for forgiveness than permission. Additionally, the Council’s lack of consistency and fairness undermines the integrity of Rhode Island’s coastal governance, the protection of our coastal ecosystems and the public’s ability to access the shore.”
In January 2023, the country club built a 600-foot-long stone wall between its golf course and the shoreline — violating existing coastal regulations intended to protect the sensitive coastal marshes that feed into Narragansett Bay. After the rock wall was discovered, with subsequent fines and warnings levied by state and federal regulators, the club sought to retroactively keep its illegal barrier in place.
Quidnessett’s April 12 petition, if approved, would downgrade the water classification from the existing Type 1 “conservation area” to a less stringent Type 2 “low intensity use,” which could — though it doesn’t have to — allow for a permanent structure like a seawall. Under the existing designation, all permanent structures are banned.
A council subcommittee took public comment, but postponed a vote on the water type redesignation at a September meeting, in order to give the country club more time to make its case. The club, through its attorneys, said a permanent barrier is needed to protect the flagship 18-hole golf course against rising sea levels.
Tuesday’s meeting would have been the next occasion to consider, and potentially make a recommendation on the application. The panel vote would advance the proposal to the full council, which would then review and make its own decision at a later date.
The Council’s months-long series of delays gives the country club an unfair economic advantage over law-abiding coastal landowners and businesses who spend money and time applying for permits to comply with the law.
– Topher Hamblett, executive director for Save the Bay
Meanwhile, the seawall still stands, much to Hamblett’s dismay.
“This has all the appearances of the council wanting to accommodate Quidnessett Country Cub’s request to, in effect, let the wall stand,” Hamblett said in an interview Tuesday. “I think that, left to its own devices, they would do just that.”
Hamblett acknowledged that he did not know why the meeting was cancelled; the council has been plagued by vacancies which have led to a string of postponed meetings and key decisions.
Jeffrey Willis, executive director for the CRMC, did not respond to multiple inquiries for comment on Tuesday.
Janice Matthews, vice president of The Jan Companies, which owns the country club, also did not respond to inquiries for comment.
The council’s staff in a Sept. 20 report argued against approving the water type reclassification, stressing the importance of the sensitive salt marshes surrounding the shoreline, along with marine wildlife, which were the very reason why the agency restricted development there in the first place — formally codified under state water type classifications created in the early 1980s.
But the politically appointed council doesn’t have to follow the recommendations of its expert staff; it hasn’t in other high-profile decisions.
Most notably, the council in 2020 approved a contested expansion of Champlin’s Marina on Block Island, against advice of staff, with terms brokered in what the town and conservation groups alleged was a “backroom deal.” The Rhode Island Supreme Court tossed the council’s decision in a 2022 ruling, agreeing with Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha that the council flouted its own public notice requirements.
A question of accountability
Hamblett sees parallels between Champlin’s case and Quidnessett, in the council’s actions, and in reactions among top state officials.
“The common denominator between Quidnessett and Champlin’s is there’s been no action from the governor or the General Assembly in terms of accountability,” Hamblett said Tuesday. “We’re concerned we’re going to see that silence continue as it relates to the country club’s accountability to the council.”
Other state officials who were copied on Hamblett’s email, including Gov. Dan McKee, House Speaker K. Joseph Shekarchi and Senate President Dominick Ruggerio, had also not responded to him as of midday Tuesday, Hamblett said.
McKee and Ruggerio did not immediately respond to inquiries from Rhode Island Current for comment on Tuesday.
Shekarchi was not available for comment due to being away for the holiday, Larry Berman, a spokesperson, said in an email on Tuesday.
One exception: Neronha, whose office has already critiqued Quidnessett for flouting state coastal regulations.
“With each public hearing that is canceled, CRMC continues to demonstrate why it cannot be trusted with environmental oversight,” Neronha said in a statement on Tuesday. “Normally, when a person or entity breaks the law, there are consequences. Here, Quidnessett Country Club decided that the rules don’t apply to them, acting in total disregard of laws designed to protect our coast, and thus far, getting away with it.”
Earlier this year, Neronha joined Save the Bay to call for eliminating the politically appointed council, and reshaping the agency as an administrative department akin to the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. Legislation outlining these changes was introduced but stalled in the last two legislative sessions.
“The time for CRMC reform was long ago, but we must continue the fight to place decision-making power into the hands of those who wish to protect and preserve our most treasured natural resources,” he said. “Because each day that passes without consequences for Quidnessett is another day of environmental justice delayed and denied.”
Hamblett said Save the Bay plans to push for a similar bill in the upcoming 2025 session, hoping that public attention — including 300 pages of written comment submitted to the CRMC — on Quidnessett might build support among lawmakers.
“We need top elected officials to be paying attention to our coastal agency,” Hamblett said.
The CRMC had not rescheduled its hearing on Quidnessett as of Tuesday afternoon. If the water reclassification is granted, the club must then apply for a permit to build any kind of permanent structure along the shoreline.
GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.