The most contentious discussion centered around a proposed construction of a pier with a seasonal ramp and float within a riverfront area, land under the ocean, coastal bank, and land containing shellfish. The revised plan for a fixed pier, which increased setbacks from the main channel of Bass River and the abutting property line, was put forward. The commission grappled with town bylaws requiring new piers to extend straight out without a T or L shape at the end. Moreover, concerns were raised about the pier’s proximity to the public beach and the precedent it could set for future constructions. The representative assured the commission that the pier would be non-motorized and positioned further back from the channel than the existing docks. Despite these assurances, the commission did not reach a decision on the request during the meeting.

Another highlight was the discussion on property rights related to the construction of docks along the Bass River. The debate surfaced when an individual claimed the right to build a dock based on their easement. The commission maintained that it was not within their mandate to resolve property disputes, which should instead be decided by involved parties or the courts. Additionally, the notice of intent for a new structure and septic system on a property was voted on, following the applicant’s presentation of revisions that included a nitrogen-reducing septic tank and the elimination of a retaining wall. Public comments and board deliberations revolved around the mitigation areas and concerns over beach erosion.

Erosion issues also featured prominently when a resident, Sindy Dorne, inquired about a retaining wall on her property and the associated requirements for plantings on the water side. The need for these plantings, which had been stipulated in a previous permit, was reaffirmed with the condition that they be completed before any additional work on the property. Concerns about delays in the required plantings were also raised by another resident, Victor. The commission voted unanimously to issue a permit for the work with special conditions, including a three-year timeframe for completion and the prerequisite of finishing all plantings before further construction.

Deliberations continued over a property where the applicant had complied with previous requests from the commission to relocate a shed and incorporate additional species of mitigation plants. A discussion ensued about the placement of these plants, with the commission emphasizing that they must be fully within the 35-foot buffer. The applicant clarified the positioning of the mitigation and additional plants, and the commission considered the total mitigation area before moving on.

An development saw an individual named Roy being permitted to present his case after an administrative error prevented him from doing so previously. He updated the commission on plan changes, including the arrangement of mitigation plants and the total mitigation area.

The commission also tackled a proposal for a work area and total mitigation with Native planting. Confusion arose over the numbers, leading to criticism of the consultant’s work. Despite some concern about the U-shaped design of the proposed area, the commission proceeded with discussions on a pier extension and float within fish run land. The representative presented the necessary environmental agency letter and modifications to the existing pier. The commission, wary of potential damage to the salt marsh from construction, decided to issue special conditions and require a work protocol to prevent harm to wetland resource areas.

Certificates of compliance for several properties were deliberated with an emphasis on specific conditions and clarifications. Additionally, unauthorized raking on the beaches by two resorts led to enforcement discussions and the issuance of fines. The commission opted to ratify the enforcement orders and considered summoning the property owners to address the raking practices that reduced the rack line.