An exceptionally long, for recent vintage at least, planning board meeting approached four hours in length last Monday night, March 24, the bulk of the discussion surrounding a request by the owners of structures at 66 Church St. seeking to change the allowed uses for the old Warren Marina to include a brewery/restaurant.

After some 150 minutes of points and counterpoints, the board unanimously voted to forward a negative recommendation to the town council based on the finding the proposed change would significantly alter the waterfront sub-district standard.

In providing an explanation of the decision, Board Chairman Fred Massie said the application was not in line with existing guidelines mandating the location be used for water-based operations and that the presentation made had conflicting elements.

"I would note that it is because it is not in line with the comprehensive plan and that the reason that we're doing this would be because the trust for public lands agreements are still in effect and are being honored by those who purchase the land that the previous comprehensive plan reinforced this, the current comprehensive plan absolutely pointed as to the water-dependent uses," Massie added.

The owners, Scott DaSilveira and Anthony Pirri, were seeking a loosening of a "current restriction requiring water-dependent/water-related uses as outlined in the historic preservation easement governing the property."

Both discussed the difficulty of operating a marina at the site. It has limited slips available for rent, DaSilveira saying just 20, and they face stern competition from the town as well as other marinas across the river in Barrington. It was stated as well last week that it was not the first time the owners attempted to gain an alteration to the use guidelines, having done so twice before.

"I want everyone to understand that what we're presenting tonight isn't this big change. I'm not intending on changing anything. I'm intending on bringing something back," DaSilveira said earlier in the discussion. "The working waterfront is important to me. It's important to my family, to my partners. It's important to the community, I think. The historical significance of it is very important."

Upon further testimony, DaSilveira announced the intention was to lease a 1,300 square foot portion of the 7,000 square foot building to Vigilant Brewery of Bristol, owned by Kevin Amaral.

In turn, Amaral would be seeking a distillery license to concoct spirits at the location as well as running what was termed a small restaurant serving "pub" food.

"We've owned the property since 2002," DaSilveira added. "We've had multiple businesses there that are water related, and I believe that a distillery/brewery is is very much in line with the working waterfront. Historically, it has been, and like I said, I'd like to bring it back."

Later in the proceedings Massie pointed out the print application for a brewery/restaurant didn't match what was being presented orally as one of the factors in his decision to vote down the request. He also wondered if doing business was so difficult had the owners considered selling.

In response, DaSilveira said they had thought about putting the property up for sale. However, what could come in its place, a heavier marine industrial presence, would be even less appetizing to the area residents than what he was proposing.

The opponents who spoke out against the application, including abutting property owner and former town councilor Brandt Heckert as well as several other neighbors and even a former tenant at the site, emphasized the "covenant" between the parties and the previous deed holder, as in the agreement adhering to existing use restrictions each had to sign before purchasing their land.

A portion of Heckert's remarks included, "Ultimately, the owners of the two adjacent parcels located at the ends of Church and Baker Street had twice sought approval for development proposals that were incompatible and harmful to the character of the waterfront. They are now trying now for a third time, three times, maybe three times a charm, I don't know, three times a bite at the apple. But our concerns go beyond the direct impact on our own properties. We really fear that development will negatively impact the entire area."

The owners and neighbors opposed to the application were represented by legal counsel. They also had historical experts speak to the board on their behalves about how the Warren waterfront had been used dating back centuries.

The applicant's expert was Dr. Patrick Conley. His research pointed out the waterfront was once part of a bustling rum operation into the early part of the 19th century. His testimony, however, appeared to sway the board little.

Town resident Davison Bolster was introduced as one of two historical experts by the opposition. Asked for his opinion, Bolster said in part, "Well, the short answer is that it would affect it obviously, if it was a very small thing, like a tiny clam shack at the end of the dock, it might not. But I think ultimately, as everybody has pointed out that this would eventually consume the whole property and potentially the property mixed door, or I think it's a real slippery slope."

Of the other board members besides Massie who spoke to their positions, Blake Costa said, "I'm not objecting to this. I think there's an opportunity, but in the end I'm not convinced that this would not significantly alter or change the waterfront based on what we've heard from your own tenants, from your abutters and from yourself."

Said Tim White, an alternate sitting in due to the absence of member Ashley Medeiros, "I haven't heard any hardships offered...and without that hardship, then how can we feel comfortable denying that there is a covenant in place for a water-dependent business?...I also haven't seen any other attempts at trying to make another business work here."

Added Terry De La Paz, "We have a lot of restaurants and alcohol already in downtown, something different would be nice an outfitter, something other than yet another alcohol-related business. There's a lot of them. And I'm a teetotaler and I prefer not to see all the alcohol."

Tyler Dixon, while ultimately opposed, did offer a somewhat different perspective, saying, "I share my colleagues views on this. I have a different opinion than some about what how we address protecting the waterfront going forward in the sense that I think that we may end up sort of depriving any opportunity of bringing industry it by limiting it into one strict category...I would be inclined to entertain something that had a more comprehensive plan that sort of guaranteed a stronger working waterfront industry sort of adjacent to something that was the compromise...And so I think that a deeper a further expanded presentation on something like that is something worth reconsidering. I just don't know that we have a way with that."