This letter is in response to an article published in last Friday’s Vineyard Gazette (June 22) regarding the superior court decision that upheld the Tisbury conservation commission’s denial of my application for a pier in Lagoon Pond. I would have preferred to have contributed my comments in the article, but since there was no attempt to get in touch with me until noon on Thursday June 21, to which I called back around 8 p.m., I apparently missed the print deadline. The decision for this case was May 30, so I openly wonder why I was given such little notice to comment.

At the beginning of one of the initial meetings that I had with the Tisbury conservation commission a former member loudly stated: “Why are we wasting our time here! We don’t allow piers in Lagoon Pond!” With that type of attitude sitting across from me, saying I had an uphill battle ahead of me would be a gross understatement. Let me make it clear that if at any point in this process, had anyone pointed out to me how my pier would be more damaging to shellfish habitat than how it is damaged now with the way I work from the shoreline, I would have withdrawn my application (this was stated to the commission several times by me). I firmly believe that the single piling pier system spaced at 20-foot centers that we designed with the help of suggestions from the Division of Marine Fisheries, along with the mitigation that I was offering the town, would clearly be a better way to conduct all my fishing activities related to my boat from the end of my pier, instead of the shoreline as I do now.

I regretfully respect the ruling of the court, but not without a sense of frustration that the decision was rendered despite no definition of what constitutes a “proven shellfish bed” (this is the wording in the town bylaw that was at the crux of the case). There is no definition or measurement parameters in the town bylaw, or any state or federal regulations regarding shellfish beds. This gives the commission carte blanche to determine on their own what is or isn’t a “proven shellfish bed.” Let me also make clear that there have been multiple piers or pier extensions built in Lagoon Pond and Tashmoo (which falls under the same bylaw as Lagoon Pond) in areas where shellfish exist since this bylaw has been in effect. Some of those approvals were first denied because of shellfish and then later approved. I would welcome a shellfish survey to compare the area where I proposed my pier to any of the areas around the piers that the conservation commission has approved under this bylaw.

I also take issue with Jane Varkonda’s statement: “There was a lot of pressure put on the town by the applicant.” I am assuming the pressure she is referencing is my attempt to talk to and work with the conservation commission (only two of seven members showed up for a site visit on this “very controversial application”), selectmen, town administrator, shellfish committee (haven’t seen and there is no copy in the administrative record of their “detailed report” Mrs. Varkonda references in the article) and shellfish warden. If so, her definition of pressure is my definition of doing my due diligence in trying to get my application approved without going to court for a pier that I know would have been beneficial to the pond.

The article boasted that the ruling “is seen as a victory for the town’s ability to impose environmental restrictions that are stricter than those established by the state.” This “victory for the town” is clearly a loss for the Lagoon Pond and its shellfish habitat.

David Hearn

Vineyard Haven