The Boothbay Harbor Board of Appeals has denied a request made by an abutter and another neighbor claiming errors were made in approving an Atlantic Avenue employee housing project. On March 16, the Board of Appeals voted, 3-0, in denying abutter Adrias Sibily’s and Atlantic Avenue resident John Seitzer’s appeal claiming the planning board ruled improperly Dec. 13 approving PGC3’s permit for employee housing at 60 Atlantic Ave. 

Seltzer lives on Atlantic Avenue and he spoke on behalf of his and Sibily’s appeal. He contended the planning board erred on four points. The first was an “erroneous” interpretation of the multi-family home, dwelling and boarding house definitions in the land use code. Second was the board failed to take into account a Maine Department of Transportation email determining the proposed structure as “a multi-family home.” Third was no shoreland zoning review as required by ordinance. Fourth was the application was incomplete and misleading. “The planning board didn’t address any of these material deficiencies in the application or require PGC3 to rectify them,” he said. “For this reason, the matter must be remanded to the planning board to require a correction in application deficiencies or the appeals board should reverse the decision.”

Attorney Mary Costigan of Bernstein, Shur represented PGC3. She contended the planning board ruled appropriately. She described the land use code as providing a “very limited definition.” She agreed their determination for employee housing was more similar to a boarding house than multi-family housing. “This was the correct determination,” she said. “A dwelling can have three to 10 rooms offered to the public for compensation. It has one shared kitchen, a shared living area, dining area and nine bedrooms. So it doesn’t matter how DOT or anyone else defines it. It only matters how the land use code does.”

The administrative appeal in part regarded the meaning of terms to see if the planning board acted in accordance with ordinance procedures. It also regarded whether site plan review was contrary to specific provisions in the finding of facts. The appeals board denied appellant requests on both counts. Regarding term definitions, Wolf concluded the planning board acted in accordance with ordinance provisions. “I feel they made the correct decision in looking at the definitions,” she said.

All three board members also agreed there were no errors in the planning board’s site plan review. “It probably was one of the better ones we’ve seen,” Appeals Board member Ron Cohen said.  

The appeals board meets next at 5:30 p.m. Wednesday, March 30 for an executive session followed at 6 p.m.by a public hearing.