Phippsburg planning board tables proposed pier after residents and counsel press for DEP and Fish & Wildlife documentation

Mike Morris, representing the landowners of 36 Parker Head Road, presented a revised application to the Phippsburg Planning Board for a permanent pier that the town and federal agencies had previously approved in a different alignment. The amended plan would relocate the pier slightly south and increase its deck width to 5 feet, use perforated composite decking to admit more light, and elevate the structure at roughly a 1.5-to-1 ratio to reduce shading of salt-marsh vegetation.

The change in width, Morris said, responded to both family-use needs and technical construction limits: relatives who use wheelchairs need more room, and the pier’s helical-anchored supports require wider spacing under the manufacturer’s specifications. Morris added that the town harbor master had provided a letter of non-objection and that prior DEP and Army Corps approvals existed for an earlier configuration but that permits lapsed while agencies processed reviews.

Multiple residents and local preservation advocates urged the board to weigh scenic and historic impacts before granting a final decision. Margaret Kramer, a local resident who said she works on comprehensive-plan GIS layers for historic resources, pointed to the comprehensive-plan scenic layers and the presence of National Register sites near the proposed alignment. Several speakers, including a representative of the inn whose view would be directly affected, requested visual renderings and asked the board to be cautious about a permanent aluminum structure that could erode the area’s rural character.

Board counsel and other members emphasized that the town ordinance requires structures to be no larger than necessary and consistent with surrounding character (citing Section 15(d)(5) and related shoreland standards). Counsel said the board could either require more information or defer action until outside agencies completed their reviews. Board members asked specifically for documentation from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and Fish & Wildlife showing that the alternate, more southerly location was the agencies’ preferred option and whether they had reviewed the proposed decking and the increased width.

The applicant said the ramp and float would be removed seasonally and stored off-site, and that the revised decking is intended to increase light penetration to reduce ecological shading. Fish & Wildlife and DEP had reviewed aspects of an earlier plan on the site, the applicant said, and the team agreed to provide the board with the agency comments and hard copies of the Fish & Wildlife correspondence that had been emailed to staff.

After extended questioning and public comment, the board voted to table the application to the next monthly meeting so members could review the DEP and Fish & Wildlife letters, review scaled elevation drawings and receive visual renderings. The motion to table was made and seconded and carried by voice vote. The board asked the applicant to submit hard copies of agency comments and updated plans before the continuation.

The application will return to the Planning Board with the requested documents and any proposed conditions (for example, seasonal removal/storage requirements and surface treatments to reduce the aluminum’s shininess). The board did not take a final vote on the pier’s substantive approvals at this meeting.