Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waterfront Pi Er topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pier plan at 46 Riverside continued after commission and neighbors raise navigational and precedent concerns
Summary
The Conservation Commission continued a notice of intent for a fixed pier, gangway and floats at 46 Riverside Street amid questions about pier length, pile spacing, dredging impacts and fairness relative to neighboring permits; the applicants agreed to a continuation and requested harbor master attendance at the next meeting.
The commission continued consideration of a notice of intent for a fixed pier, 40‑foot gangway and two floats serving 46 Riverside Street (DEP file 14‑1440) after detailed design discussion and public comment raised navigational and precedent concerns.
Bob Griffin (representing the applicants) described design changes made since the project’s initial filing to reduce the number of piles by using aluminum truss spans with approximately 45‑foot spacing between pile pairs. He said that change reduces the number of piles by about half compared with the original design but requires more expensive truss structures. Griffin said the pier as drawn provides access to the minus‑7 contour (the consultant’s mapped permanent water elevation) and argued that the design meets performance standards, increases safety and avoids floats resting on mud during tidal cycles.
Applicants Adam and Jenna Wood, who live at 46 Riverside, described their intent to eliminate existing floats that sit in mud and said they wanted safe access for family safety reasons; Jenna said the design balances access with conservation concerns. A neighbor and several members of the public spoke about fairness and precedent, noting recently permitted long piers on nearby properties and urging the commission to consider navigation, cumulative shoreline impacts and the harbor master’s written concerns.
Commissioners asked technical questions about pile length, dredging studies, channel width and how the proposed layout would relate to a possible future town dredging project. Griffin said the floats sit about 10–11 feet clear of a planned expanded channel and that pile locations would not conflict with dredging side slopes; he also said the applicants would relocate a float later if necessary.
Commission members expressed differing views: one member said they were not inclined to approve a longer pier than neighboring approvals; another noted the application meets the Wetlands Protection Act performance standards and urged further discussion with the harbor master. The applicants asked for a continuation and offered to work further with town staff and the harbor master. The commission voted to continue the hearing to the next scheduled meeting (September 25) and asked staff to invite the harbor master to attend the continuation so the commission could consider his concerns in person.
