CRMC finally moves to enforce its own demands
By Nancy Lavin, Rhode Island Current
More than 100 days after state coastal regulators verbally agreed to crack down on Quidnessett Country Club for failing to remove a rock wall from its shoreline, they’re backing up their words with legal action.
The Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) filed a counterclaim against the North Kingstown country club in Providence County Superior Court Tuesday. It wants a judge to force the country club to remove the 600-foot stone wall built without permission roughly three years ago. The 17-page filing was submitted in response to one of three lawsuits the country club has filed against the coastal panel in the ongoing dispute over how to restore the shoreline of its property — and whether the wall even needs to be taken down.
The country club initially built the buffer to shield the 14th hole of its signature golf course from coastal erosion, defying state coastal rules that prohibit permanent structures in environmentally sensitive areas. After being caught by state regulators in August 2023, the country club initially sought retroactive permission by arguing for less stringent environmental regulations in the area.
The politically appointed coastal panel denied the request in January 2024, setting off a debate over how Quidnessett should remove the wall and return the shoreline to its preexisting conditions. All seven plans submitted by Quidnessett were rejected by CRMC staff because they failed to meet coastal requirements.
During the back-and-forth with coastal regulators, Quidnessett turned to the courts, with a trio of lawsuits alleging procedural violations and challenging the legitimacy of the agency’s shoreline restoration requirements.
The country club’s most recent complaint, filed Oct. 23 in Providence County Superior Court, asked a judge to reverse the CRMC’s enforcement order, contending that the dispute should be referred to an administrative hearing officer under the agency’s own guidelines, while labeling coastal regulators’ conditions for the location and slope of a natural barrier to replace the rock wall as “arbitrary and capricious.”
The agency in its counterclaim denied these allegations, instead pointing to Quidnessett’s defiance despite an escalating series of written and verbal warnings and threats of fines.

.webp)






.jpg)






