The Planning and Zoning Board on Jan. 7 continued an application to construct a dock at 67 Water Street, citing conflicting survey information and concerns from adjacent property owners that the proposed dock could reduce navigable width in a narrow creek and damage oyster beds.

The applicant, Ryan Carter, presented a revised design intended to reduce the dock footprint and move the terminal platform slightly north and west after the board continued the matter at its Dec. 3 meeting. Carter said his firm performed a bathymetric assessment and reduced the dock to “the maximum extent practical,” adding a small 12‑by‑12 boat lift and an 8‑by‑15 floating section to allow kayak and paddleboard access. He told the board the revised layout preserves an average of roughly 16 feet of open water at mean low tide through the cut: “This 16.8 and this width isn't negatively impacted,” Carter said during his presentation.

Neighbors and intervenors countered with technical challenges. Resident Steve Hill (65 Water Street) disputed the riparian/property lines shown on the applicant’s plans and said a 32‑foot boat would not negotiate the narrow opening without damage. Hill also told the board the channel “filled in with silt within weeks” after earlier dredging.

Attorney Jeremiah Mulligan, representing neighbors, told the board the applicant’s survey and plans do not align with the property’s recorded boundary and that the public had limited time to review the Friday‑night submittal. Mulligan asked the board to deny the application until the applicant supplies accurate boundary information and clearer bathymetric and resource data.

Board action and conditions
- Motion: continue the Conservation Overlay Zone dock application (PCB‑2024‑0092) to Feb. 4, 2025.
- Additional direction: the board amended the continuance motion to require the applicant to provide a professional assessment and map of oyster beds (if any), a corrected stamped boundary survey showing riparian lines, and any updated bathymetry or cross sections that clarify mean high/low water and float clearance. Staff was instructed to post and circulate resubmitted materials prior to the Feb. 4 hearing.

Why neighbors objected
- Property lines: Neighbors submitted letters claiming the applicant’s riparian lines and property take‑offs were inaccurate. The board heard testimony that the existing deck and bulkhead align with neighbors’ riparian boxes, contradicting the application’s drawings.
- Navigation: Neighbors and boat owners described the channel as narrow at low tides (often one to two hours either side of high tide provides practical access) and said the proposed placement could reduce safe navigation for existing boat lifts.
- Benthic resources: Neighbors raised concerns that a floating dock and boat lift sited at low tide would sit on oyster beds and crush or destroy shellfish habitat.

Applicant response
Carter told the board he had not been aware of a separate recorded boundary dispute until neighbors raised it at the hearing: “I wasn't even aware of it. … we'll have to find out about that southern boundary,” he said, and asked to continue so his team could verify the property boundary and revise the design if needed.

Public and staff involvement
Several written public comments were read into the record opposing the dock pending corrected surveys and ecological information. City staff confirmed the matter is reviewed under Section 11.29 (Conservation Overlay Zone development) and that the board’s review is the appropriate local step; any Army Corps or DEP permits remain separate requirements.

Next step
The item is continued to the Planning and Zoning Board meeting on Feb. 4, 2025. The applicant was directed to submit a stamped boundary survey, professional oyster‑bed/benthic mapping and any revised and sealed engineering bathymetry/cross sections ahead of that date.