The New Shoreham Conservation Commission voted unanimously Oct. 30 to send a negative advisory to the New Shoreham Town Council on an application to alter wetlands to allow driveway access to Lot 136 via Lot 138.

Conservation Commission member Susan Gibbons read the motion aloud: "Conservation Commission sends a negative advisory to New Shoreham Town Council on the current request to alter wetlands in order to use the right of way through Lot 138," citing "not [enough] current legal clarity on whether the Blansfields are able to access Lot 136 via an existing right of way between Lots 134 and Lot 33 or directly across 134." The motion passed with all members voting in favor.

Why it matters: the advisory goes to Town Council, which will include its recommendation when the application proceeds to the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) or if the access question is resolved through the courts. Commissioners said the commission’s charge is to protect wetlands and that they were not satisfied the applicant had demonstrated that no viable alternative access exists.

Commission debate and amendment

Members discussed competing technical analyses and multiple letters submitted by interested parties asserting different legal and engineering conclusions about easement rights and alternative access. Commissioners said the letters were persuasive on different points and that the record did not settle the legal question. "DEM may very well approve the use of the right of way through Lot 138," said Conservation Commission member Taryn McGregor, adding, "as conservation commission, our mission is to protect wetlands and that I don't feel ethical not acting directly on that mission when I haven't been convinced that there is not an alternative point of access." The commission also noted a prior favorable recommendation from the planning board.

Kevin Hoyt, who identified himself as the potential buyer of Lot 136, presented maps, historical aerial photos and soil data and said the lot had historical residential use and areas had been cleared in the past. "This is not pristine wetland," Hoyt told the commission, and he asked members to consider equity in their decision: "My needs are no less than yours."

After discussion, commissioners agreed to add two sentences to the motion: a commendation of the public and interested parties for their submissions, and language stating that "should the courts decide that the right of way is indeed the only access to Lot 136, we are comfortable with the mitigation measures proposed should DEM also agree to them." The added language was read into the motion before the vote.

Vote and next steps

Susan Gibbons moved the combined motion and a fellow member seconded it. The commission recorded unanimous 'aye' votes with no opposition. Commissioners said they would prepare a written advisory to Town Council and circulate the draft to members prior to sending it; one member volunteered to assemble the final language and email it to the group.

What the advisory does and does not do

The advisory is nonbinding: the Conservation Commission is an advisory body and Town Council and DEM retain decision-making authority. Commissioners emphasized they were not opposed to development per se but were unwilling to recommend wetland alteration when they were not convinced that the proposed route was the only viable access. If DEM or a court later authorizes access across Lot 138, the commission’s statement indicates it expects mitigation measures to be implemented to the commission's satisfaction.

Documentation and evidence

The record referenced multiple letters from interested parties, a planning-board recommendation described as favorable, maps and historical aerial imagery submitted by Kevin Hoyt, and engineering materials referenced in the application packet. Commissioners repeatedly noted the existence of conflicting legal opinions over easement rights and that the question may ultimately be decided by a court.

The commission adjourned after the vote.