Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dock Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves dock replacement at 874 West Wakefield with conditions; removal of concrete piers deferred until fall drawdown
Summary
The IWWC approved replacing a private dock at 874 West Wakefield Boulevard with an aluminum floating dock and required removal of existing concrete piers when water levels fall, plus pre‑installation notification to the wetlands agent.
The Inland Wetlands Watercourse Commission voted April 16 to approve a permit to remove an existing dock and replace it with a new aluminum floating dock at 874 West Wakefield Boulevard (IWWC 25‑5). The commission set conditions: the concrete piers are to be removed when water levels are down in the fall, and the applicant must notify the wetlands agent before positioning the new floating structure.
Alan Hebbie, representing the applicant, told the commission the contractor expects the on‑water removal and replacement work to take two days and that workers would avoid placing heavy machinery in the lake bed; for removal of concrete pillars the applicant said they would wait for lower water levels in the fall. "They ... believe it would only take 2 days, but they would wait until the fall when the water level is brought back down to remove the concrete pillars," Hebbie said.
The commission and staff discussed the dock’s configuration in detail. The proposal described a floating platform composed of multiple 5‑by‑10 foot units and a shorter terminal section, producing a total length that scaled to about 30–34 feet from the shoreline depending on ramp length. Commissioners confirmed a 10‑foot maximum dock width applies under the town’s dock and mooring ordinance and advised the applicant to work with the wetlands agent and surveyor to place and stake the dock precisely; the commission cautioned the applicant had little lateral tolerance because the property frontage is about 30 feet.
Commissioners debated whether to require a bond to ensure pier removal. After discussion they decided a bond was not necessary; instead the commission made pier removal an explicit condition of approval. Staff also required the applicant to notify the wetlands agent prior to final placement so staff could oversee positioning.
The motion to approve included the removal of the existing piers when water levels drop; the vote was recorded as four in favor with one abstention. The commission recorded that one commissioner abstained (Jeremy).
