Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shoreland Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board tables proposed seasonal pier after residents raise scenic, wildlife concerns
Summary
At a lengthy Planning Board hearing, applicants described a revised pier proposal (wider decking, composite perforated deck to reduce shading); residents and conservation advocates pressed for visual renderings and documentation from IFW/DEP. The board asked for written comments and tabled the application pending further documentation.
The Phippsburg Planning Board heard an extended application to construct a pier and associated seasonal ramp and float at a site that includes marsh and views identified in the town comprehensive plan.
The applicant (speaker 6) summarized prior approvals and a modified plan: the revised proposal moves the pier to a more southerly location previously suggested by DEP, increases the deck width to 5 feet to accommodate family members with mobility needs and specifies perforated composite or fiberglass decking to increase light transmission and reduce shading of marsh vegetation. "The proposed pier will be 5 feet in width," the applicant stated during presentation.
Neighbors and preservation advocates urged the board to require visual renderings, underline impacts to scenic vistas and National Register resources, and asked whether DEP and Fish & Wildlife (IFW) had reviewed the widened design. One resident told the board the comprehensive plan calls out nearby historic structures and said a permanent, wide aluminum pier would have a lasting visual effect. Attorney Kristen Collins (speaker 17) cited shoreland zoning standards (section 15.d.5) that require facilities be "no larger in dimension than necessary to carry on the activity and be consistent with the surrounding character and uses of the area."
Board members questioned whether 5 feet was necessary and requested documentation from IFW/DEP showing support for the modified width and the new decking. After deliberation a motion was made and seconded to table the application to allow the applicant to provide updated project materials (hard copies) and any agency comments; the motion carried. The board also directed the applicant to submit a corrected project description and copies of any IFW/DEP emails or approval letters.
