Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Roads And Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Charlestown pushes CRMC for approval on Beach Road millings; council debates budgeting approach
Summary
Councilors and staff discussed a $118,000 proposal to place milled asphalt aggregate on Charlestown Beach Road, a prior CRMC preliminary denial that the town is asking to be reversed, and whether to budget the work now or place funds in Fund 75 as a placeholder.
Charlestown officials discussed a proposed $118,000 work to place an asphalt aggregate (millings) surface on a section of Charlestown Beach Road, and said the town is seeking to reverse a prior preliminary determination from CRMC that denied permission for work along the beach access.
Council members and staff described the proposed scope as the roadway from the bridge and the town parking lot near the BMX entrance down to the beachway, using a milled asphalt aggregate rather than a full repave. Staff said the draft budget includes the $118,000 line if the state coastal regulator grants permission.
Finance staff said CRMC issued a preliminary denial about a year ago and that town officials have since asked the council and an outside expert to resubmit a letter arguing that because the town previously received maintenance permission in 2013 CRMC should honor that earlier determination. Finance staff said CRMC’s position has been that the earlier permission was given in error and the town is asking CRMC to reconsider.
Councilors debated whether to include the $118,000 in the operating budget now or place the amount in Fund 75 (the capital/maintenance fund) so the money would be available if CRMC changes its determination. One council member argued against budgeting money for a project that might not be permitted. Another councilor said placing the money in Fund 75 would keep the fund replenished and allow the town to move quickly if approval arrives.
Residents and other speakers raised concerns about the quality and appearance of millings previously used on the road. A resident described the prior product as dusty and visually degraded and said earlier millings packed down poorly; that speaker urged the town to seek a fresher millings product and consider dust control. The same speaker offered an analogy: "if you take chocolate, pick the frosting off of a doughnut, chop it up, and then put it back on a doughnut... it just looks like crap," attributing the effect to old millings that had deteriorated.
Councilors discussed alternatives including dust‑control measures (the transcript references calcium chloride and other dust suppression approaches) and noted that base preparation and full pavement would cost more than the proposal for millings. Staff also said the town had performed a similar maintenance approach years earlier and is seeking to return to that previously accepted condition if CRMC agrees.
Officials flagged timetable and funding risks: if CRMC reverses its decision months from now, the council may have to delay or reallocate funds; if the town does not set aside money now and CRMC later approves, it could be left without appropriated funds in the near term. Several councilors said they prefer to put the money in Fund 75 as a holding account rather than directly into the general budget until the permitting question is resolved.
Charlestown staff said they have been communicating with CRMC and sent a reminder email on the 25th (of the month referenced in the transcript) asking for an update; CRMC's earlier response was described as a "preliminary determination" that denied permission. Council members asked staff to continue pursuing CRMC reconsideration and to present a clear funding option at the next meeting.
No formal appropriation for the road was made during the session; councilors instructed staff to continue outreach to CRMC and to hold potential funding in Fund 75 unless CRMC grants permission.
