Opinion ID: 2392006
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: CRMC Assent

Text: Finally, the town asks this Court to vacate the portion of the Superior Court order declaring that the loading and docking of a commercial ferry at marinas and docks on the [pond]    including Champlin's and Payne['s] Dock, are proper and allowable uses of the pond's Type 3 water designation as defined by the regulations of the [CRMC]. Apparently, the town is concerned that the order deeming the ferry activities in this case proper and allowable uses of the pond permits the inference that CRMC assents to plaintiffs' activities in this case. The CRMC categorizes the pond as a Type 3 water body. According to CRMC regulations, Type 3 waters include intensely utilized water areas where recreational boating activities dominate and where the adjacent shorelines are developed as marinas, boatyards, and associated water-enhanced and water-dependent businesses. Coastal Resources Management Plan (CRMP) § 200.3. As CRMC executive director, Grover Fugate, testified at a separate hearing before the Division of Public Utilities and Carriers, CRMC assent to undertake such operations within Type 3 waters may be required depending on their intensity and interference with recreational boating activities. See CRMP § 100.1 (requiring CRMC assent for certain activities occurring within tidal waters). The town argues that the ruling was premature because there was no evidence that CRMC ever had determined whether its assent would be required, and if so, whether it would be granted. The parties here do not dispute the pond's Type 3 designation. Nor do the parties dispute that such waters may be used for commercial ferry operations. As discussed, however, the issue in this case concerns only the town's regulatory authority over the pond. The plaintiffs had never applied for CRMC assent, nor did CRMC stipulate that such assent would be unnecessary. Further, the town did not seek to enjoin the plaintiffs' activities for lack of CRMC assent. In describing CRMC's position on the relationship between commercial ferry operations and Type 3 waters, the hearing justice said that such activities would be permitted, according to CRMC, as long as the use does not significantly interfere or preclude recreational boating. (Emphasis added.) Thus, it is clear that the court order merely described the legality of undertaking commercial ferry activities within the pond pursuant to CRMC's definition of Type 3 waters. The order did not address the issue of CRMC's assent to the plaintiffs' activities in this case and, accordingly, we need not disturb that portion of the order.