03/07/09 - The town will appeal a judge’s decision approving an expansion of Champlin’s Marina.

The Town Council voted unanimously Wednesday to direct its solicitor to fight the 3.08-acre expansion in state Supreme Court.

“We’re dissatisfied with the decision. We think it doesn’t protect the town the way it should,” First Warden Kim Gaffett said.

Technically, the town will appeal Judge Netti Vogel’s application of the law in her decision, not the expansion itself. The council met in closed session for more than 40 minutes to discuss the town’s strategy.

Afterwards Gaffett declined to detail the town’s legal plan. She did say the town would take steps to prevent the expansion while the appeal works its way through the court system.

Since 2006 the town has spent $60,473 on legal costs in the Champlin’s case and that number will only rise with the appeal. Gaffett said the town planned to solicit help from private individuals to cover the cost of the appeal, but considered the money well spent.

“This is an important issue and sometimes you have to spend money and we are very cognizant of the cost,” Gaffett said.

The town may also receive help from other groups involved in the case. The Committee for the Great Salt pond is scheduled to meet Saturday to decide whether to join the appeal. And the Conservation Law Foundation could also travel to the Supreme Court.

The case started nearly six years ago when the marina proposed adding four acres and pushing 240 feet farther into the Great Salt Pond to build an additional 2,990 feet in fixed docks.

The state Coastal Resources Management Council shot down the proposal in a 5-5 tie vote in February 2006. Champlin’s appealed, saying that members of the council engaged in communication outside the formal process.

Judge Vogel agreed and granted a slightly smaller expansion than the marina wanted. She said she would not return the case to the CRMC for a new decision because the body remains in disarray after voters passed the Separation of Powers amendment in 2004. That constitutional amendment removed lawmakers from boards such as the CRMC. The governor has yet to reconstitute the makeup of the council.

DEM support

To prevent future scenarios like the Champlin’s case the town adopted an ordinance in January that would essentially require those looking to build in the Great Salt Pond to receive town approval. Anyone looking to develop in the pond would need the town as a co-applicant on applications submitted to the CRMC because the town owns the land on the bottom of the pond. The ordinance would only work if the CRMC rejects applications without the town’s signature.

A spokeswoman for the agency said its legal department is reviewing the ordinance and its lawyer has not responded to phone messages left by the Times.

But the town could receive some help from the state Department of Environmental Management. Director Michael Sullivan wrote a letter to the council suggesting that the DEM adopt regulations to require town approval for applications related to the Great Salt Pond. The DEM must sign off on certain environmental studies before projects can move forward and if the study is rejected so is the project.

The council planned to discuss the letter at a future meeting.

Sprague gravel pit

Joe Sprague asked the council for guidance after the Zoning Board shut down his gravel pit off West Side Road last week. Sprague said he has $202,000 worth of material sitting on the site that is unlikely to be sold by the time the decision officially takes effect 10 days from when it is posted in Town Hall.

“It’s a huge outlay of money I’ve got sitting there,” Sprague said.

Sprague said there is nowhere he can legally move the material and his equipment.

Solicitor Don Packer said the town would not enforce the decision until 20 days after it is posted in Town Hall. The 20 days provides a window for Sprague to appeal the decision to Superior Court.

But Sprague wanted Packer’s comments in writing. He said after the meeting he is still deciding whether to appeal.

Extra: Read Judge Vogel's decision