Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pier Application topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, preservationists press board over large pier proposal at 36 Parker Head Road
Summary
A lengthy hearing on July 25 centered on a revised pier application for Map 7 Lot 12 in Phippsburg. The applicant described a wider, relocated pier; neighbors and preservation advocates urged the board to require visual renderings and defer final action until DEP and Fish & Wildlife findings are provided.
Mike Morrison, representing the applicants for 36 Parker Head Road, told the planning board the proposal now calls for a pier relocated slightly south of the original approval and widened to 5 feet to accommodate family members with limited mobility. The application identifies the parcel as Map 7 Lot 12; Morrison said the change in location reflected agencies’ preference for lower-value cattail marsh and that the pier decking would switch to perforated composite to reduce shading. “The proposed pier will be 5 feet in width,” Morrison said during his presentation.
Neighbors and local preservation advocates urged the board to press the applicant for more documentation before approving the design. A resident who identified herself as vice president of the historical society and a member of the Historic Preservation Commission pointed to the town’s comprehensive-plan mapping and asked that the board request a scenic assessment and visual renderings. “This is an important scenic vista, noted in the comp plan,” the resident told the board. Sarah Denning, steward of the 1774 Inn and a member of the conservation commission, said the inn’s guests depend on an uninterrupted marsh view and urged mitigation to reduce visual and habitat impacts.
Board members asked detailed questions about elevation and shading. The applicant said the pier bottom would be about 7.5 feet above the marsh in the salt-marsh reach and that handrails and structure could increase total height at points; he also explained that helical-anchor spacing and manufacturer specifications influenced the decision to widen the deck. The applicant said the modified plan had not yet received DEP approval and that the earlier permit for a different configuration had a finite remaining term. A board member advised caution and suggested waiting for DEP and Fish & Wildlife findings before making a final determination. The board voted to table further action and requested hard-copy documentation, DEP correspondence and any Fish & Wildlife comments to be provided before the case returns to the agenda.
