A private pier large enough to trigger the definition of a marina will return to the Edgartown conservation commission next week after the applicants for the pier decided to scale back the size this week.

William Wrigley Jr., a seasonal resident and chairman of the Wrigley chewing gum company who owns the former Hedley home on the Edgartown harbor, applied for a special permit to build an 87-foot pier parallel to an existing 110-foot pier to hold at least two 40-foot boats and an 80-foot boat. But according to the state Division of Marine Fisheries and a town bylaw, the size of the private pier qualifies as a marina.

The town defines a marina as a pier capable of docking more than five vessels. Although the plan only calls for berthing three boats, the pier has slips available for six.

The revised project will now go before the conservation commission on Wednesday. The new plan calls for removing the existing pier and moving the new 87-foot-long by 80-foot wide T-shaped pier further up harbor. Last month the commission voted unanimously to approve the original project with the condition that no more than nine boats can berth at both piers.

The project also includes an elevated walkway, and a plan for removing invasive species on the bluff.

Mr. Wrigley bought the property in August of last year for $17.4 million.

The Division of Marine Fisheries sent a letter to the conservation commission in response to a notice of intent by MV Ocean LLC, 24 Ocean View avenue, Mr. Wrigley’s real estate corporation, noting that the location of the project is in a mapped shellfish habitat for quahaugs and bay scallops.

“Although submitted as a private project, the site plan appears to be for a marina . . . considering another pier exists on the property,” wrote division director Paul Diodati. “As such, review through the [Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act] process may be required.” The letter is published on the Editorial Page in today’s edition.

In the letter Mr. Diodati calls for a pumpout system and says the loss of shellfish habitat is likely.

The original plan was presented to the planning board on Tuesday night by surveyor Doug Hoehn. Abutter David Brown appeared at the hearing to object.

“This really isn’t a dock . . . it never occurred to me anyone would be suggesting anything as grandiose as this. We’re afraid to set foot on our bluff,” Mr. Brown said. “None of the docks are anywhere near the size of the additional dock by itself.”

Mr. Brown’s attorney, Ellen Kaplan, also told the board that under the state statute, a marina not only requires a pumpout station but rest rooms and refuse receptacles.

“No detail from this plan can determine whether it would meet the standards for a private marina,” she said. “I would suggest to you there’s nothing in the area that looks like this. It’s completely in public view in Katama Bay and it is a completely inappropriate site to have something this huge in a private residential area that presumably would have several boats, large boats, docked at it all summer long,” she said, adding:

“It’s premature to take any action on this but if you’re going to take any action I suggest you must deny it based on this application and what is really being proposed to be constructed here.”

Mr. Hoehn said the length of the pier was necessary due to the water level at low tide; he said most of the existing pier is out of the water during extreme tides. The letter from Mr. Diodati suggested no future dredging be allowed, but Mr. Hoehn suggested it was a standard letter from the state and said the only dredging that would be required would be for dock spiles.

Mr. Hoehn then proposed a revised plan with a single pier.

“This is the same dock slid up the shoreline [approximately] 60 feet and puts it in an area where the shoreline is at its widest,” he said. “[Mr. Wrigley] is willing to go forward with this . . . it’s the same dock proposed because he needs the place for his boats.”

Planning board members urged Mr. Brown to work with his neighbor.

“Regardless of which way this goes here, you come [to the Vineyard] to relax and I’m assuming the Wrigleys do too,” board member Fred Mascolo said. “It’s very important you both work toward some kind of middle so you both achieve peace of mind.”

If it is approved by the conservation commission, the pier plan will return to the planning board for review on April 19.