Local Initiatives 



movement of service and emergency vehicles and allow for efficient maintenance of 

 infrastructure. In these communities, development of cul-de-sacs is discouraged or 

 prohibited, and road or facility construction may be forced into areas where construction is 

 in conflict with town aquifer protection or wastewater management policy. 



Ordinances may also be severely diminished in effectiveness if specinc 

 regulatory language providing implementation responsibility is not 

 incorporated into applicable board operating procedures and into the 

 regulatory language of related authorities. For example, Middletown's 

 comprehensive watershed protection ordinance provides for little or no development within 

 200 foot streambank buffer areas, or on poorly drained soils. Nevertheless, a subdivision 

 permit was approved by the town planning board, which had not incorporated appropriate 

 language into its operating regulations for subdivisions. On appeal to the board of review, 

 the approval of the planning board was accepted as given, because the board had no 

 contradictory authority. 



In such situations, elected board members may have little power to 

 ensure that town policies be internally consistent, particularly where a variance 

 granted by one board may be appealed to a review body having conflicting or overlapping 

 jurisdiction. Conservation Commissions are advisory only, have no coordinating 

 responsibility, and have little role in the substance of permit review. Local inconsistency is 

 perpetuated by the fact that permit applicants tend to prefer going through the hearing and 

 appeals process at the state level rather than obtaining a variance from multiple municipal 

 bodies. 



In many towns, public works departments and municipal boards and 

 commissions are insufficiently informed and/or unsympathetic regarding 

 the objectives and regulatory requirements of state programs, which should be 

 serving as a force to encourage local internal consistency, as well as consistency with state 

 regulatory language. Planners, conservation commission members. District 

 Conservationists, and state and federal scientists interviewed state tiiat tiiey must repeatedly 

 stress to local boards that natural water resource systems have no regard for private or 

 municipal boundary lines. 



State regulatory tools which have been made available are often 

 incompletely utilized. For example, attachment of permit conditions as deed 

 encumbrances can be an extremely useful enforcement mechanism if supported at the local 

 level. Section 2-1-22 (f) of the Amended Freshwater Wetiands regulations states that 

 "notice of permit and notice of completion of work subject to permit shall be eligible for 

 recordation under Chapter 13 of tide 34 and shall be recorded at the expense of the 

 applicant in the land evidence records of the city/town where the property subject to permit 

 is located, and any subsequent transferee of such property shall be responsible for 

 complying with the terms and conditions of the permit." This provision is very important, 

 as outlined in previous sections. 



In fact, the notices are inconsistentiy recorded. Although the Rhode Island Building 

 Code references wetiand permitting, no mechanism exists to ensure that building inspectors 

 obtain the land evidence records and either verify recordation or assure compliance with 

 stipulations before issuing building or occupancy permits. Because severe non-point 

 pollutant impacts are associated with project construction, this program weakness is 

 critical. 



208 



