Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Coastal Management topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board tables dune‑restoration/seawall project after extended public concern
Summary
A continued hearing on a dune‑restoration and riprap project drew detailed expert input and extensive abutter objections about mapping, scale, and potential end‑effect erosion; the planning board voted to table the application for further review and alternatives analysis.
The Phippsburg planning board on March 18 tabled a contested dune‑restoration project after a prolonged public hearing that featured expert input, technical disputes about mapping and plan scale, and repeated abutter concerns about potential erosion impacts.
Applicant representatives presented plans that include emergency riprap expansion, sand covering and native plantings with a proposed taper/curved returns intended to reduce end‑effect erosion. The applicant submitted an email from Pete Slivinski, a marine geologist at the Maine Geological Survey, saying the tapered/curved design was the preferred method for attenuating wave energy. The applicant’s representative said the DEP (Maine Department of Environmental Protection) had prepared an order and that DEP approval for a straight vertical wall was expected if needed.
Multiple abutters and residents challenged the submitted high‑water line and scale on the reduced plans, saying field measurements showed different elevations and that the reduced 11x17 plans distorted distances. One commenter said the measured distance from the toe of the existing wall to the proposed work appeared closer to 25 feet, not the 60 feet shown on the plan; another cited photographic evidence from January storm events to argue curved returns can create scour at adjacent properties. “I have pictures…so I know what’s going to happen when we hit the … property,” an abutter said, urging a full seawall rather than the tapered approach.
Board members noted the town’s limited authority: planning regulations cannot override the Natural Resources Protection Act and DEP rules that limit extending stabilization across certain areas. The board also discussed potential liability if neighboring properties were damaged as a result of an approval. Given the technical disputes and a request for further review of alternatives and expert opinion, the planning board moved to table the item until the next month’s meeting.
What happens next: The planning board asked for additional alternatives and clearer plan materials (full‑size plan set or corrected reduced plans), and will revisit the application at the next meeting; a tie or deadlock would result in a denial per the board’s procedural guidance unless a quorum changes.
