Phippsburg planning board hears objections to 5‑foot pier proposal at 36 Parker Head Road

The Phippsburg Planning Board on July 14 heard sustained public concern about a proposed permanent pier with a temporary ramp and float at 36 Parker Head Road (Map 7 Lot 12).

Applicant Mike Morris told the board the revised proposal places the pier in a more southerly location than an earlier permit and increases the permanent pier to a 5‑foot width to accommodate family members with mobility needs and to meet helical‑anchor spacing requirements. "The proposed pier will be 5 feet in width," Morris said, adding the pier will use a perforated composite or fiberglass decking to allow sunlight through and that seasonal floats and ramps would be removed off‑site in the off season.

Neighbors, conservation advocates and the owner of the nearby 1774 Inn told the board the structure would harm a locally valued scenic vista and historic setting. "The new location will be directly in front of the view of the inn, which people come here for the history of the inn, but also to see that uninterrupted nature," Sarah Dunnigan said; she identified herself as an inn steward and a member of the conservation commission.

Kristen Collins, counsel for the 1774 Inn, urged the board to apply shoreland zoning standards that require facilities be "no larger in dimension than necessary" and to consider the comprehensive plan’s list of historic resources. Collins cited shoreland ordinance provisions (recorded in the meeting as Section 15(d)(5) and Section 17(d)(3)) and asked the board to obtain confirmation from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) that the alternate, more southerly location was DEP’s environmental preference before making a decision. "We have heard that the DEP suggested this different location, but I don't see any evidence of that in the record," Collins said.

Speakers raised technical questions about whether the pier must be 5 feet wide rather than narrower with revised support beams, and they debated accessibility guidance. Commenters referenced federal accessibility guidance noting a 36‑inch walkway and a 60‑inch turning radius in some contexts; applicants and neighbors gave practical accounts suggesting that a 5‑foot pier provides necessary room to turn and safely maneuver a wheelchair. The applicant also described manufacturer recommendations for helical anchor spacing (about 50–60 inches) as one reason for widening the deck.

Board members and other residents also pressed for scaled drawings or visual renderings to quantify the pier’s visual footprint and for a DEP decision or statement on the preferred location to be added to the record. The applicant said the DEP decision on the modified application had not yet been issued and that the original permits for a different footprint had been issued previously.

No formal motion or vote on the application is recorded in the transcript excerpt provided. Members of the public and counsel asked the board either to defer action until DEP’s written findings are available or to require additional materials (visualizations and documentation) before approving a pier that residents and the inn’s counsel described as large for the shorefront setting.

The board’s next procedural step was not recorded in the transcript; members discussed options including requesting more information, obtaining DEP documentation, or considering conditions limiting seasonal floats and ramp placement.