Opinion ID: 1996268
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Subcommittee Hearings

Text: The subcommittee held twenty-three public hearings over the course of two years from the time of Champlin's application in 2003 until its final hearing on September 16, 2005. Extensive testimony and voluminous exhibits were received during the hearings, which reportedly were the longest and most exhaustive in CRMC history. The protracted hearings were rancorous and hotly disputed, not only among the parties but also among the subcommittee members. Subsequently, the four subcommittee members eligible to vote held a public workshop on October 24, 2005, to make findings of fact based on the evidence that had been presented to them, and to decide upon the recommendation that the subcommittee would make to the full CRMC. Subcommittee member Ricci commented during the public workshop that clearly, this is an emotional, very difficult issue. Subcommittee member Zarrella asserted at the public workshop: I wish Mike Tikoian never put me on this committee, 23 meetings.    I don't want to be here. It was clear that tension arose in this case because of a conflict involving the implications of the marina expansion into the environmentally sensitive Great Salt Pond and the reality that dockage for watercraft is necessary for the general public to have access to the island. As chairman of the subcommittee, Lemont addressed those present at the workshop and praised both sides for their outstanding presentation. He noted that after looking at the evidence, there is no right and there is no wrong.    We're looking at what is the best fitted decision that will impact all of the concerns raised. Lemont expressed his conclusion that [t]here has to be compromise, and he supported neither the grant of the full application nor its outright denial. He was not alone; during the public workshop, all four members of the subcommittee voiced their opinions against the full requested expansion in the application, and three members, Chairman Lemont excluded, indicated that they would support a middle ground of an expansion of 170 feet. Lemont stated at the public workshop that he would not support anything more than 100 feet. Sahagian expressed his wish that the Town or the objectors did try to compromise a little bit more. He went on to say that what I am thinking right now is the Town at one point was at 100 feet, the applicant was at 240. [One-hundred and seventy feet] is in the middle. Ricci commented, I am not in favor of approving the application as it's stated, for 240 feet. But, I also agree with my fellow subcommittee members, that I'm not in favor of denying the application outright. He concluded that [t]he applicant seeks 240 feet. They're not going to get my recommendation for that or my vote for that. Zarrella remarked that he wished [the town] left that plan in there for 100 feet. It would have been a lot    easier if [they] left the plan there, but when they took it out at the public meeting, it's been difficult for me. He went on to say, I can't say no expansion. I can't say it. The evidence is not there. The evidence is there for expansion. And, I can't say 240 feet. Further, Zarrella concluded that I'm on the page that the Chairman is, of a compromise, but I think [that] I'm on a page that I'm a little bit more  I want to give a little bit more. He lamented, [the] Town's hands are tied. The plans for 100 feet came in too late. As far as I was concerned, it should have come in earlier and I think you guys could have negotiated it out a long time ago. On January 10, 2006, the subcommittee made forty-seven findings of fact and issued a recommendation with the three votes in favor of a scaled-down modification of the proposal to 170 feet, rather than 240 feet, and one vote, Lemont, against. B