The meeting’s most contentious topic was the planned ferry service, which sparked an discussion over its potential impact on local traffic and zoning laws. Bill Cleary, representing Sea Streak, explained that discussions about the ferry service began nearly nine months ago and culminated in a signed agreement days before the meeting. Despite Cleary’s reassurances that the service would not exceed the traffic levels of existing marine operations, community members were skeptical. Concerns were raised about the classification of the operation, with Cleary maintaining that the service was excursion-based rather than a traditional ferry terminal. However, a participant named Jack Beavens contested this, arguing that the service’s nature and its transportation of passengers from Manhattan closely mirrored that of a ferry terminal.

Traffic congestion during peak times, particularly on Fridays, was a recurring concern. Questions arose about Sea Streak’s plans to manage traffic, including the coordination with Uber drivers and the potential need for increased police presence. The logistics of docking a 120-foot vessel capable of carrying 505 passengers were also scrutinized, especially regarding its impact on local waterways and the riparian grant area.

Several council members and residents expressed dissatisfaction with the introduction process of the ferry service, criticizing the perceived lack of transparency and planning. One council member noted, “This is a terrible presentation,” emphasizing that the community was not adequately informed. Concerns about potential compliance with local zoning regulations were voiced, with some arguing that the ferry service should comply with the same scrutiny as other waterfront projects.

Public commentary included a range of perspectives, from residents like Dave Kevin Arrow, who questioned the lack of early engagement with the council, to Sean Casey, who raised alarms about emergency access being hampered by traffic from the ferry. The absence of formal zoning applications was a focal point, with residents demanding a more structured approach and adherence to regulatory processes.

Zoning issues were further highlighted by the discussion of a new ordinance proposal that would allow temporary permits for ferry operations, limiting them to nine weekends and 18 trips. The proposed ordinance would exempt temporary permit holders from site plan approval for the operational period but would require it for any permanent establishment. This proposal was met with mixed reactions, with one council member frustrated by what he saw as a fast-tracked process that skirted established protocols. Another member defended the idea as a means to support local business interests while maintaining that future approvals would still be required from planning and zoning boards.

The meeting also involved clarifications from the ferry company about the operational aspects of the service, including the reservation-based system and the adequacy of existing infrastructure to support increased tourism. The ferry, which plans to operate a 500-passenger boat, prompted questions about managing pedestrian and vehicle traffic, particularly on Inlet Drive, which is already prone to congestion. The lack of sidewalks and the presence of blind curves were identified as potential safety hazards.

The mayor faced criticism for announcing the ferry service without prior consultation with council members. This lack of internal communication was a point of contention, with residents and council members emphasizing the need for better coordination and transparency in future deliberations.

In response to public concerns, there was a call for more thorough consideration and planning, with suggestions that the ferry service should undergo a trial period to assess its impact. The meeting concluded with a decision to introduce the ordinance by name, with a vote of 3-2, allowing the proposal to proceed. The second reading of the ordinance is scheduled for June 16th, providing another opportunity for council members and residents to voice their opinions and seek clarity on the ferry’s operational framework.