Waterways Commission Meeting
Special
Meeting
(Town Hall Library Room)
MINUTES
Members Present: Charles Beggs, Eric Weiner, Lee Scarbrough, Paul Donovan, Matt Hart
Members Absent: Fred Clancy, Al McMullen,
Other Attendees: Cyd Ziegler (BOS Rep.), Ted Barrett (Finance Com. Rep.)
Alan Pollock, Wesley Price, Dave Nollan, Ren Nichols, Don Govini, Michael Schreibman, Jim Healy (attorney for HPBW), Gail Smart, Dan Lowery, Ralph Smith, Pat Vacca, David Heseltine, Jim Brennan, John Kelley and six others who did not write down their names.
MEETING OPENED:
MINUTES READ: No Minutes were read because this was a
Special Meeting
COMMUNICATIONS: Review of Town of
OLD
BUSINESS: None at this meeting
NEW BUSINESS: Discussion about Mooring
Regulations and present situation in Harwich.
Matt Hart, Chairman of the Waterways Commission opened the
meeting with the explanation that this meeting was a Special Meeting to discuss
the present Town of
“The harbormaster of
a city or town, or whomsoever is so empowered by said city or town may
authorize by permit the mooring on a temporary basis…”
But, the Board of Selectmen for the Town had also
previously voted to restrict the number of moorings allowed in Harwich to be
issued to no more than two moorings to any individual, and then only after
Waterways Approval. No written provision can be found that specifies the
exception of Boat Yards, Yacht Clubs, Hotels or Boat Retail organizations in
the Town of Harwich Waterways Regulations, By Laws or Board of Selectmen
Minutes, as far as it is known today.
The Three Mooring Options draft, with regard to Moorings
in the Town of
1) Everything Stays
the same and would be documented in the Waterways Regulations
2) All moorings
would be under Town control and there would be one central waiting list
3) A version of # 2
above with a provision for a quantity of moorings under Boat Yard and
Yacht Club
control.
Mr. Beggs commented about the Town of
Mr. Ziegler commented about the misunderstanding about the
Corps of Engineer permits. He indicated
that by State Laws all waterways belong to the state, but the state has given
the authority to regulate the waterways to each Town. The Corps of Engineers
permit, as far as moorings are concerned, is to protect a water channel from
being obstructed. He also indicate that as the BOS liaison to the WWC he and
the other members of the BOS wanted to know the Waterway’s preferred course of
action before holding a public meeting to review and adopt a new Mooring
Policy. He indicated that the recommendation from the WWC is not always
accepted and/or approved, but that the input from the WWC and the General
Public was an important part of the BOS decision process.
Mr. Hart explained that in areas where Federal Government
money was used for dredging, the Corps of Engineers requires that the mooring
fields be open to everyone, but most of the Harbors in Harwich, where moorings
are present are not involved with the Federal, Corps of Engineer regulations as
far as the open to all provision.
Mr. Ziegler explained the background of the mooring
issues. He indicated the need to assure that no Mooring Holder could be
pressured by a Boat Yards for additional business or loss of that issued
mooring. Making sure that all individuals were on one central waiting list and
the understanding that the mooring hardware could be provided by the Boat Yards
or by the individual Mooring Holder. He indicated that the BOS has heard many
complaints over the years from boat owners who felt that they might lose their
moorings if they did not support a particular boats yards requirements.
Mr. Beggs stated that he thought that the changing of the
mooring regulations would mean considerable automobile and dingy parking
problems for all of the Harwich Harbors.
Mr. Ziegler indicated that he believed the same present
Mooring Holders would continue to do business with the same respective Boat
Yards for mooring rental and boat services. Therefore the Parking issues would
be about the same as they are today.
Mr. Schreibman was concerned about the fairness of the
present system, and non-compliance with state and federal regulations such as
mooring assignments on an equal basis. He believed that a single waiting list
is needed for equity and toward building a boating community.
Mr. Kelley believed the present system worked well. That
the Town should continue toward an “Outsourcing trend” and that the Boat Yard
should continue to have site ownership and control of the present number of
moorings in Harwich.
Mr. Healy (who represents HPBW) liked the synergy’s of the
Outsourcing System, agreed that the Towns Regulations needed to be clarified,
and believed the marriage of Boat Yards, the Town and Boating were positive. He
also was concerned about Safety and Parking on private property if the system
were changed. He stated the Boat Yard; specifically HPBW did not use a waiting
list because the turn over of moorings was less than 0.06 % a year. He indicated
that problems, like the ones being mentioned, are very rare and do not justify
throwing out a public-private partnership that works well efficiently and saves
taxpayer money.
Mr. Smith asked about the actual volume of parking at
HPBW, about the Boat Yard Fees and related business issues of how HPBW Mooring
Business saved taxpayers money ?
Mr. Hart reminded the attendees that the topic was about
all Moorings and would not allow the discussion to focus on specific
individuals or businesses. But, for the record the parking area you mentioned
is shared with the Boat Yard and the Yacht Club for their private use. In
addition he mentioned the present parking problems at the
Mr. Healy explained that there was a mutual understanding
between the Boat Yard and Yacht Club with regard to all car parking.
Mr. Ziegler directed his comments through the chair to Mr.
Healy and indicated that what was missing was an actual contract between the
Town and the Boat Yards for the moorings and a clear written definition of services
provided by all Boat Yards. Responding to the comment that the present system
was an advantage for taxpayers. He wanted to know if Mr. Healy was suggesting
that the Town would be sharing the Mooring revenue ?
Mr. Healy indicated that he was not sure about that and
would discuss it with his client.
Mr. Beggs brought up again, his concern about available
parking at
Mr. Hart stopped the discussion to again remind the
attendees to stay on topic, All Town of Harwich Moorings. He commented that the
Town of
Mr. Dovovan indicated that there is a long history of the
Town’s partnership with private Boat Yards, that he only knew of a few significant disputes. For that
reason he believes the policy should remain the same and be left alone.
Mr. Beggs agreed, but indicated the regulations needed to
be formalized.
Mr. Nichols
commented about the present Town Clerical issues and asked how the Town
was going to be able to afford the extra Clerical expense of managing another
150 plus moorings ? Who is going to pay for these additional administration and
work force expenses ?
Mr. Schreibman stated that a fair and open Mooring Waiting
List and Assignments was needed for all residents. He did not believe it was
correct as to weather the public is being properly served when a private
boatyard operator can act as the authority over town assets, (the moorings).
Mr. Healy indicated that his client wanted to be Honest,
Open and Fair with regard to a Waiting List.
Mr. Smith wanted to know how the present arrangement with
Boat Yard and Yacht Clubs was of financial value to the Town ? Who was making
the profit ?
Mr. Beggs indicated that the cost of moorings was much
less than boat slips and that the Town was not really invested in Mooring
Hardware, so the Town was getting a good deal.
Mr. Barrett indicated that this arrangement with the Boat
Yards was a long-standing situation.
Eric Weiner Was
concerned about the fairness of the present process. Motion: That WWC move forward
with Option 2, revamping the entire mooring system with some additional
modifications and submit it to the BOS.
There was no 2nd.
Mr. Brennan wanted to know how soon before decisions would
be made by the BOS ?
Mr. Ziegler indicated that the process, including a public
hearing would be started in a couple of weeks.
Mr. Schreibman indicated that the Taxpayers of the Town
should come first.
Charles Beggs made a motion that Option 1, including the
Boat Yards, Wequassset Inn and Cape Water Sports be approved and that a more
complete description be incorporated in the Waterways Regulation. The motion
was 2nd by Paul Donovan. Two individuals (Mr. Beggs & Mr.
Donovan voted in favor, there were three abstentions. Motion Accepted, not a majority.
Note: The Town of Harwich Waterways
Commission uses Robert’s Rules and requires a
Majority vote of quorum attendees at that
meeting. Art. VIII Section 48:
Any legitimate motion not
requiring a majority vote, requires
for its adoption a majority, that
is more than half the votes cast, ignoring
blanks, at a meeting where a quorum is present.
Lee Scarbrough was
also concerned that the present system was not fair but he was also concerned
that the Options 2 & 3 were not specific enough. He made a motion that
Option 2 should include Boat Yards controlling “a few” moorings, that there
must be protection from pressure from Boat Yards for the Mooring Holders and
also a provision for Boat Yards to maintain the moorings. There was no 2nd.
Mr. Beggs made a motion to submit the Three Options to the
BOS with recommendations that a Public Hearing be held to discuss the various
modifications to the Mooring Regulations. 2nd by Paul Donovan 4 in favor, none
against , Mr. Hart abstained.
ADJOURNMENT:
Motion to Adjourn at 8:45 PM