05/02/09 - Lawyers for the Coastal Resources Management Council filed an appeal with the state Supreme Court on April 17, asking it to review Judge Netti Vogel’s February 24 decision to grant Champlin’s Marina an expansion. It joins similar petitions from the town and environmental groups also asking the state’s highest court to overturn the decision.

Vogel’s action reversed a 5-5 CRMC vote that denied the marina expansion. She disqualified the votes of three council members — Chairman Michael Tikoian, Vice Chairman Paul Lemont and Jerry Zarrella — for what she considered to be improper communications and bias.

Vogel also argued that she could not send the matter to the CRMC to reconsider because its current make-up was unconstitutional.

CRMC says, however, that there are eight members on the council who were constitutionally appointed by the governor; a quorum requires seven members.

The brief further argues that Tikoian’s comments and actions did not rise to the level of improper ex parte communication or bias.

The CRMC asks how the judge could accept testimony from Zarrella, which impugned Tikioan, when it also disqualified Zarrella for bias in favor of the marina.

The court “did not attempt to reconcile or even address the obvious fact that Mr. Zarrella’s bias in favor of the applicant could have and likely did affect his credibility in his attempts to have Mr. Tikoian disqualified,” the brief reads.

Regarding Lemont, though the marina contended that he had “predetermined” the case, the CRMC points out that the marina had not moved to disqualify Lemont at any time before the Superior Court appeal.

Further, Vogel found that Lemont was biased because he attempted to introduce a 100-foot alternative marina plan created by a CRMC engineer.

Yet, the CRMC argues that Champlin’s itself admitted that the plan was “strikingly similar” to a plan submitted by the town.

This was not sufficient to disqualify Lemont, the CRMC argues.

Finally, the agency says that the granted expansion was not “supported by reliable and substantive evidence.”