CONNECTICUT HARBOR MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING

March 27, 2006

President Severance called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.

Members present: Joel Severance (Chester), Lou Allyn (Mystic), Mike Griffin (Norwalk), Peter Holecz (Bridgeport), John Pinto (Norwalk), Bob Sammis (Stratford), Geoff Steadman (Associate), Mary VonConta (Executive Secretary).

I. Previous Minutes

A motion to accept the minutes of the September 20, 2005 Board meeting was made, seconded and approved unanimously.

 

II. Treasurer’s Report

Treasure Bob Sammis reported a balance of $9,814.20 as of 12/31/2005 and $9,614.38 as of 2/28/2005. A motion to accept the Report was made, seconded and approved unanimously.

 

      III.   Election of Officers

      President Severance announced that due to term limits he is no longer eligible to run for President. Bob Sammis moved that there be an election of officers to serve until an affirmation vote at the Annual Meeting. The motion was seconded and approved unanimously.

A motion was made, seconded and approved to elect Mary VonConta to the Board of Directors.

A motion was made, seconded and approved to elect the following officers:

President – Dr. John Pinto

Vice President – Mary VonConta

Treasurer – Bob Sammis

Secretary – Lou Allyn

 

President Pinto then assumed the chair.

IV. Reports of Committees

Annual Banquet – Bob Sammis recommended booking “significant” speakers for future banquets. General discussion recommended focusing on the Coastal Management Program this year. Bob will confirm with the Woodwinds October 12^th or 19^th as preliminary dates for the 2006 Banquet.

Dredging Task Force - Norwalk dredging Phase I is nearly complete except under some of the bridges.

 

Geoff Steadman reported that the ACOE is working on the New England Dredging Team meeting in Boston; perhaps in May 2006. He and John Pinto are planning to attend and make a presentation.

Geoff also reported on the February meeting in New Haven of the Maritime Coalition. His table recommended that the Connecticut Coastal Management Plan be readdressed. There was a general discussion by the Board that the DEP needs be an advocate rather than just a regulator. The problem is that the DEP believes that doing both is a conflict of interest. Geoff will write a letter to this effect to the Maritime Coalition with a copy to the Maritime Commission. John Pinto will arrange a meeting with DEP Commissioner Gina McCarthy to discuss.

 

Lou Allyn reported that Mystic has submitted their Maintenance Dredging request to the ACOE.

Peter Holecz reported that Bridgeport will receive $1,350,000 for management of dredged materials from Bridgeport Harbor.

B.  Legislative Activity –

      There was a discussion of Raised Bill HR662 An Act Concerning Dredging.  A letter will be written to put the CHMA on record that we do not want another study.

      HR307 Purpose Long Island Stewardship. No action taken.

Lou Allyn reported that Mystic River Harbor Commission David Carreau had testified at a hearing March 6 on Raised Bill No. 5658 – Removal of Abandoned Sunken Vessels.

 

C.  Boat Taxes –

There was a discussion about increasing the share of Connecticut boat taxes to Towns with the intent that some of the increase will be earmarked for Harbor Management. John Pinto will file a Freedom of Information request for a report on the status of the Boating Fund.

 

D.  Membership

Stamford would like to join as an Associate Member.

 

 

IV. HARBOR MASTER’S REPORT

Mike Griffin discussed the advisability of holding further Harbormaster training sessions until outstanding questions re job description and liability coverage on use of personal boats were resolved. Training will be on the agenda of the next Board meeting.

There was a discussion of the Harbormaster’s stipend: maximum is $750. Local Harbor Management Commissions have the authority to add to that amount and to pay expenses.

 

V.  ASSOCIATES REPORT

      Nothing further to report. 

 

VI. OLD BUSINESS

      Nothing further to report.

 

VII. NEW BUSINESS

A. Broadwater

John Pinto will write a letter to Gina McCarthy with copy to Attorney General Blumenthal that the proposal should be subject to a Coastal Management Plan compliance review.

B. Geoff Stedman reported on the Appeals Court decision re Pietro vs. Zoning board of Appeals. (See attachment below.)

C. A motion was made, seconded and approved to purchase America’s Changing Coast for the CHMA library.

D. A motion was made, seconded and unanimously approved that “The Board of Directors of the Connecticut Harbor Management Association recognize the significant contributions of Joel Severance to advance the goals of the Association during his term as President and express its appreciation for his efforts on behalf of the Association, and look forward to his continued participating on the Board of Directors in the work of the Association.”

 

VIII. NEXT MEETING

Annual Meeting for 2005 to be held in June at a date to be determined.

 

 IX. ADJOURN

            The meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

 

 Respectively Submitted By:

 Louis Allyn, Secretary

 

PETER DIPIETRO v. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE CITY OF MILFORD

(AC 26166)

Schaller, Dranginis and Gruendel, Js.

Argued October 25, 2005—officially released January 24, 2006

(Appeal from Superior Court, judicial district of Ansonia-Milford, Hon. Hugh C. Curran, judge trial referee.)

Brian A. Lema, for the appellant (plaintiff).

Matthew B. Woods, with whom, on the brief, was Cynthia C. Anger, assistant city attorney, for the appellee (defendant).

Opinion

GRUENDEL, J. The plaintiff, Peter DiPietro, appeals from the judgment of the trial court affirming the decision of the defendant, the zoning board of appeals of the city of Milford, upholding the cease and desist order issued by the assistant city planner. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly found that (1) (a) the city of Milford (city) had statutory jurisdiction to regulate use of the plaintiff’s docks, (b) zoning regulation of the docks is not preempted by the state and (c) enforcement of the regulation did not exceed the city’s police power, and (2) there was an adequate and legal basis in the record for the defendant’s decision.1 Because we conclude that the defendant acted within its authority to enforce regulations concerning the plaintiff’s use of the docks and that its action was supported by the record, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.