Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rye Harbor Study topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public raises questions about Rye Harbor study scope and protections for commercial moorings
Summary
At the Pease Development Authority meeting, public commenters pressed staff for details about an RFQP for a Rye Harbor study, asking whether it is only a discovery phase, whether Hampton will be included, how use criteria could allow redevelopment, and whether commercial moorings and operators will be protected.
Public commenters urged clarity on a newly released request for proposals for a Rye Harbor study, pressing the Pease Development Authority on scope, independence and protections for commercial operators.
At the Authority’s Dec. 12 meeting, a public commenter identified in the transcript as Dwight Tuttle said he had “got my hands on a copy of the RFQP” and raised multiple questions about what the study is intended to do. “I’m trying to figure out if it’s a discovery… and the next step once you see results, you’re gonna do a feasibility study,” Tuttle said, asking whether the study could consider uses that are not part of current operations and whether those changes could allow non‑maritime development such as hotels or condominiums if the study’s “highest and best use” calculation pointed that way.
Tuttle asked whether other harbor facilities, specifically Hampton, would be included or whether the work is limited to Rye. He also asked whether the mix of moorings (commercial vs. recreational) would remain the same and whether commercial moorings and small businesses would be “grandfathered” in the event the study recommended different uses.
Another commenter, identified as Adam Baker, asked whether his and other operators’ right‑of‑entry agreements, which expire this year, would be renewed so business owners could plan. The board chair responded that the public‑comment period is not for back‑and‑forth answers and encouraged written questions so staff could provide follow‑up; he said the executive director would address port‑related items.
The comments laid out several specific public concerns: whether the RFQP’s stated assessment goals will permit the consultant to add new use criteria not already reflected in current operations; how close involvement by PDA and DPH in the assessment could shape results; and whether a budget or cap exists for infrastructure spending that could change the harbor footprint. The commenters linked those questions to financial stakes—investments by commercial fishermen and other small businesses—and asked whether the state‑directed mission for harbor operations would be prioritized over strictly maximizing revenue.
The meeting record does not show detailed staff responses to these questions during the public‑comment period. Chairperson comments advised submitting questions in writing; staff later addressed some port items during the finance and ports reports (including ARPA‑funded feasibility work at Hampton), but the record does not contain a point‑by‑point public reply to the RFQP questions.
What happens next: the chair invited written questions for staff to answer and the executive director and port staff noted ongoing feasibility work for Hampton Harbor funded in part by ARPA. No formal decision on the Rye Harbor RFQP scope or study boundaries was recorded at the meeting.
