The proposed pier on Riverside Street sparked extensive discussion among commission members and residents, focusing on its potential impacts on navigation and local ecology. Advocates for the longer pier argued that it would encourage boaters to stay within the navigable channel, reducing the frequency of boats running aground. The debate centered on whether the pier’s extended length would indeed lead to safer navigation or if it could complicate matters further by forcing boats to navigate around the new structure.

Legal counsel Jamie Mada emphasized the environmental benefits of the pier. However, this viewpoint was contested by others who believed that the responsibility for safe navigation lay with the boaters themselves, who should be adhering to the designated channels regardless of the pier’s structure.

Town meeting member Pete Clement highlighted the needs of smaller boats, such as kayaks, asserting that these vessels could navigate the waterway even at low tides without any alterations to the pier. He argued that the pier would not negatively impact recreational use of the waterway and would instead guide boaters toward the channel, minimizing grounding incidents. Resident Rich Osberg shared firsthand experiences of summer boating, noting how boats getting stuck often caused more chaos as they attempted to free themselves. He supported the longer dock as a means to alleviate congestion and confusion during low tide.

The commission members expressed varied viewpoints on the proposal, with one member acknowledging the harbor master’s unfavorable opinion due to concerns about recreational water use being compromised by longer docks. Despite personal reservations about the pier’s length, the member noted a lack of existing regulations to limit dock size.

Ultimately, the commission moved towards formal decisions regarding the project. A motion was made to close the public hearing on the proposal, followed by discussions about granting a waiver to permit work in the 35-foot no-disturb zone and the 50-foot no-build zone. The commission voted on various motions, including issuing an order of conditions for the project that incorporated comments from the Department of Marine Fisheries and recommendations from the harbor master.

In addition to the pier debate, the commission addressed compliance issues concerning a property on Water Street. A request for a certificate of compliance for work conducted under a 2014 permit was reviewed, with the applicant seeking to differentiate between permitted and non-permitted work on the property. The commission learned of additional issues, including a non-conforming shed and damage to retaining walls caused by an automobile accident. The applicant was working on a compliant design for the shed and preparing a notice of intent to address these issues.

An attorney representing a local resident opposed the certificate issuance, citing a history of non-conforming structures and a cease and desist order that had allegedly been ignored. The attorney urged the commission to delay issuing the certificate until the new notice of intent was filed, raising concerns about the applicant’s compliance history. The commission members debated the merits of issuing the certificate at that moment versus waiting for the new notice of intent. Ultimately, a motion was made to continue the application for the certificate of compliance until the next meeting.

The commission also addressed a notice of intent for a property on Riverside Street, which had been continued since September. The proposal involved a new pier design utilizing an aluminum truss system. The commission was presented with visuals detailing the existing pier and the conditions of the floats, emphasizing the need for alignment with established regulations.

Additionally, the commission reviewed a request for waivers related to a notice of intent for property on Sherwood Avenue. The applicants, Daniel and Hillary Gordon, plans for home additions within no-build and no-disturb zones. The proposed expansions would remain below the threshold for disruptions, and mitigation efforts, including pollinator gardens, were planned. After discussion, the commission approved the necessary waivers and issued an order of conditions for the project.