PROVIDENCE — What should the government count as a substantial objection when it comes to the approval of new development projects?

It sounds like a question for attorneys, but it took center stage during a regular meeting of the Coastal Resources Management Council on May 13.

Before the executive board is what probably looked like a pretty routine project. TSL LLC, which owns the Bristol Harbor Inn at 267 Thames St. in Bristol, applied for an assent from CRMC to expand its current marina on Bristol Harbor by 2,500 square feet, and includes five new pilings, a new ramp, and wave fence.

“The purpose of this expansion is to provide a space for a new pool boat as an amenity to the existing onshore hotel business,” Justin Skenyon, an ocean engineer for CRMC, wrote in the staff report that recommended agency approval of the proposal.

But TSL’s proposed marina expansion is strongly opposed by the Stone Harbor Condominium Association, which abuts the Thames Street property and has its own marina on Bristol Harbor.

In a letter dated Aug. 14, 2024, attorney Thomas V. Moses from the law firm Moses Ryan Ltd. wrote that Stone Harbor had “substantive objections” to the application, alleging there was direct evidence the project didn’t meet all of CRMC’s regulations and would have an adverse impact on circulation and flushing patterns in the harbor, sediment deposition, erosion, recreational views, and aquatic habitat.

The condo association argued the proposed pool boat isn’t actually a vessel or boat under state regulations, but a new structure or deck. “A hotel and/or pool is not a water-dependent commercial use, so a new structure associated with it would be expressly prohibited,” Moses wrote in his objection letter.

Complicating the matter, Stone Harbor took both the applicant, TSL, and CRMC to Rhode Island Superior Court prior to the May 13 council hearing. Judge Joseph J. McBurney declined to provide injunctive relief in the case prior to the agency making its own ruling on the application.

Mark Hartmann, one of the attorneys for CRMC’s executive board, told council members Tuesday they had to determine if the objections laid out by Stone Harbor raised the matter to a contested case level.

“[The judge] agreed that a request for hearing has to be substantiated by a genuine, material reason in order to get the matter to a contested case level,” Hartmann said. “If he had not agreed with us, there’s a higher likelihood that you would have had good reason to actually mandate that council send it to a subcommittee.”

Why does it matter? Because CRMC’s decision-making council has gotten in trouble before for not following its own procedures clearly. Earlier this year, Superior Court Judge Jeffrey A. Lanphear vacated the council’s decision to approve a controversial marina expansion in Jamestown by the Jamestown Boat Yard, ruling the council had failed to classify the petition as a contested case, which it should have then assigned to a subcommittee for review.

CRMC subcommittees aren’t uncommon, especially when the agency’s hearing officer already has a full workload. The agency formed a subcommittee in 2019 to consider Perry Raso’s oyster farm expansion, but the downside is that decisions take longer when subcommittees are involved. Raso, the owner of Matunuck Oyster Bar, didn’t receive a final decision on his farm expansion until 2023, a full six years after he submitted his original application.

The agency has, until recently, also lacked a hearing officer to hear contested cases. CRMC’s current hearing officer is still hearing the agency’s first big contested case, concerning a 1-acre oyster farm proposal off Sapowet Marsh in Tiverton.

The Dumplings case, named for the abutters who opposed the Jamestown marina expansion, as it’s known, hung over CRMC’s May 13 meeting. The 10-member executive board, nine of whom are politically appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate, have come under fire by environmental groups who deem the council unqualified to make final decisions on behalf of the coastal agency. Making the wrong decision likely means another lawsuit, and another piece of evidence for council naysayers.

Moses, citing the Dumplings decision, told council members they had to vote to send the TSL application to a subcommittee.

“The Dumplings case is very clear,” Moses said. “If a request for a hearing is made, you shall grant them a hearing. That is what Judge Lanphear decided.”

But Hartmann pushed back, telling council members they were allowed to decide what exactly counted as a substantial objection in matters before the agency. The agency’s regulations, he said, “make it pretty clear that a request for hearing must be substantiated by a genuine and material reason in order for it to rise to the level of a contested case.”

Ultimately, council members erred on the side of caution, voting unanimously to send the case to a subcommittee for consideration.