letter to the editor

A terrible precedent

Mon, 09/04/2017 - 4:00pm

Dear Editor:

I wish to follow up on a report of a meeting with the Southport town fathers, which was reported in this paper on Aug. 31 (Boathouse Revisited).

I had asked for this meeting because of my disagreement with the town’s decision to dismiss the process of inspection of a small boathouse at 117 Cameron’s Point Road, 1.5 years after development took place.

Prior to the spring of 2016 this simple over-the-water structure was well-documented in photographs and paintings and for many years was used to repair and store boats. When the property sold, I and a few other neighbors shook hands with and welcomed the new owners.

Since then, considerable work was done to the boathouse: trenching of electric and water lines, construction involving many large loads of lumber delivered, and weeks of work done on the interior after the dock was rebuilt and the windows replaced. The only permitted and inspected work was a change of windows.

Post-construction behavior, including overnight waterfront parking on a footpath, late night entertaining under bright (motion) lights, bedroom furniture delivery and morning showers on the decks, led neighbors to worry about change of use of this structure. The practical risk outside of inspection, permit, and review, includes septic and other clean water concerns among others. The town issued a violation notice and the owner put up “no trespassing” signs while continuing use.

A considerable back and forth including lawyers ensued, resulting in a meeting before the appeals board in late spring 2017 and, finally, an agreement to inspect.

In June abutters received a surprise letter that stated that the case had been dismissed when the owner promised ‘not to use the boathouse overnight.’

The town now recommends that the “neighbors work this out.” I respectfully disagree.

Selective enforcement of our code exposes us to the very risks which drove us to enact the code. It also risks noncompliance with shoreland zoning (state) regulations. No lawyer should counsel us to dismiss process in the interest of expediency: there are many boathouses on Southport and such advice sets terrible precedent. An open, disclosed, and documented inspection must take place as was agreed, to assure that we take enforcement seriously and execute compliance without prejudice.

Tom Myette

Southport