Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residential Dock Gregory Blvd topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Norwalk commission raises navigational concerns but allows Gregory Boulevard dock pre‑application to proceed
Summary
The commission gave a no‑objection for a pre‑application residential dock at 130–163 Gregory Boulevard while flagging potential inconsistency with a Charles Creek dredge footprint and asking the applicant to return with clarifying information.
The Norwalk Harbor Management Commission on June 25 forwarded a pre‑application for a private residential dock at 130–163 Gregory Boulevard while asking the applicant to provide additional information about the dock’s relationship to an existing dredge footprint and to solicit input from the Charles Creek Association.
The applicant, Tom Ryder of LandTech, described a proposed fixed pier, ramp and float to provide water access to Charles Creek. His drawings showed a 16‑by‑4‑foot fixed pier, a 36.5‑foot ramp and a 20‑by‑5‑foot float with a 6‑by‑5‑foot landing.
Why it matters: commissioners said two harbor management plan policies apply: (1) no fixed or floating structures should be placed within the permitted dredge footprint identified for Charles Creek, and (2) tied vessels should maintain a clear navigation corridor—previous plan language referenced maintaining a roughly 50–55‑foot wide fairway between moored craft.
Discussion and direction: the commission instructed the applicant to clarify whether the proposed dock or vessels attached to it would extend into the dredge footprint included with the Charles Creek permit and to provide documentation of any discussion with the Charles Creek Association, which holds the dredge permit. The applicant said he would submit revised plans showing two vessels and the distance between them and can meet either a 50‑ or 55‑foot spacing if required.
Action: commissioners stated they had “no objection” to the application moving forward at the pre‑application stage but explicitly noted that final consistency with the harbor management plan depends on additional information from the applicant and responses from Charles Creek Association and DEEP during the formal permit process.
Outcome: commission recommendation to allow the pre‑application to proceed with a request for further information; no final approval granted. The commission emphasized that any inconsistency with the harbor management plan will need resolution during regulatory review.
Next steps: applicant to submit revised drawings showing measured vessel separations and to document consultation with the Charles Creek Association; the commission will revisit consistency once that material is available.
