Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Coastal Management Parking topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council authorizes CRMC applications for Sauconic Point parking expansion after residents question unpermitted work

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Little Compton Town Council voted to authorize applications to the Coastal Resources Management Council to extend the gravel parking area at Sauconic Point (Plat 9, Lot 430) and to place boulders at two beach access points after public concerns about unpermitted excavation.

The Little Compton Town Council voted to authorize applications to the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC) to extend the gravel parking area at Sauconic Point (Plat 9, Lot 430) and to place boulders on two beach access points on the east side of the harbor beach after extended public comment raised unpermitted excavation and environmental concerns.

The vote follows a lengthy public discussion led by Scott Brown, who identified himself as a former commodore of the yacht club and president of Friends of Scott Lighthouse and criticized recent town work in the harbor as “more than what we voted on” and said the excavation disturbed a coastal feature without engineering, state approvals or erosion controls. Brown said the disturbed area “butts the harbor and [is a] highly protective barrier” and questioned who approved the activity.

Felicity, the town solicitor, told the council that disturbance within a coastal feature requires a CRMC permit and said that depending on how the council proceeds, some members might need to recuse themselves. The solicitor and a Harbor Commission representative said CRMC staff had indicated that the town would likely need three separate permit applications for the kinds of work under discussion (parking-area extension, guardrail/edge reinstatement and access-point work).

Harbor Commission members and councilors discussed options to limit vehicle access to the beach, including replacing eroded telephone-pole guardrails with scene-appropriate boulders placed to block vehicle access while still allowing kayak passage. The Harbor Commission chair advised the council to consider separate applications for each affected lot or access point so CRMC can evaluate percent expansion and buffers individually.

Councilmember Ben (first name only in the record) and others noted the town’s engineering and fire-department concerns: the fire chief had flagged that expanded parking could crowd the lot and affect emergency vehicle access. An engineer in town told the council he is available to help prepare drawings if the council approves the application.

After motion and second, the council voted to authorize the CRMC application for permit/assent to extend parking on Plat 9 Lot 430 and to propose placing necessary retaining boulders on two access points on the east side of the harbor beach. The motion passed by voice vote; the record shows the motion was seconded and carried, with no roll-call tally provided in the transcript.

Public commenters also raised other concerns at the meeting, including long-term trailer and box-truck storage at the harbor that neighbors said creates odor and noise nuisances; the council noted those use-and-enforcement issues are separate from coastal disturbance and may require separate agenda items to address.

Council discussion also touched on deed language for portions of the harbor property; one speaker read from a deed passage saying a dock “shall be maintained in perpetuity for public, recreational, and coastal access purposes” and questioned whether commercial fishing uses on the lot match that language. The solicitor and the council said use questions and property-deed disputes are separate from CRMC permitting, which focuses on disturbance to coastal features.

The council requested the Harbor Commission and town staff work with available engineers to prepare the engineering drawings and application materials for CRMC before a formal submission. The solicitor warned that council members with conflicts should recuse from matters before CRMC.

Action on the CRMC application was recorded as approved; council members indicated they would follow CRMC’s guidance on application format and any required recusal.

Votes and next steps: the council authorized town staff to prepare and submit the required CRMC applications with engineering drawings; Harbor Commission will supply supporting documentation and input on parking/guardrail design. The council and Harbor Commission agreed to return with engineering plans and clearer site limits for CRMC review.