Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Dock Permit topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning Board: three‑member subcommittee approves Fly Catcher dock/float with findings to be memorialized

Planning Board · February 11, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A three‑member subcommittee that conducted a site visit approved Fly Catcher's application to replace and raise a 5x12 dock; the board will finalize written findings and the code officer will issue the permit before work proceeds.

A three‑member subcommittee of the Planning Board that inspected the site moved to approve the Fly Catcher dock and ramp application after a site visit, and the board voted to adopt the subcommittee's findings on the record. The applicant's representative, Tim Forester, confirmed the work is intended to raise the dock slightly (approximately a 5 by 12 structure) to reduce flood risk and to pin the structure to ledge to avoid soil disturbance.

"We were there so we can at least vote on the record," one member said, describing the site‑visit findings. The board clarified that its vote approves the application and findings; Gary, the town code enforcement officer, issues the actual permit and may perform ministerial checks before construction can begin. Forester said he was chiefly concerned with timing for the contractor and whether approval or the issued permit would determine the start date. The board answered that the approval is effective as of the signing on the record but the contractor should confirm permit issuance timing with Gary.

Members agreed the subcommittee would finalize a written decision incorporating the site‑visit observations and deliver the signed decision to the code officer so the approval becomes effective and the permit process can proceed. No recorded roll‑call vote with individual names was read into the record; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote.