The Boothbay Harbor Board of Appeals denied a reconsideration request from Boothbay Harbor Waterfront Preservation (BHWP) at their Aug. 14 meeting. The move is the latest in a series of complications in ongoing conflict around the proposed Eastside Waterfront Park project. 

July 17, the board ruled against BHWP, upholding a decision made by the code enforcement officer (CEO) in April. The decision required the organization to apply for a flood hazard development permit to make repairs at 65 Atlantic Ave. July 25, BHWP filed a motion for the board to reconsider.   

The focus of BHWP’s arguments on Aug. 14 was documents and information presented during the July 17 meeting. BHWP lawyer Anthony Muri said information was presented too late to review and appropriately respond to while also focusing on the meeting business at hand.    

“There is good reason to doubt that due process was provided to Preservation when so much important material comes in so late in the game without an opportunity to rebut it. That makes for unfairness. That's the core of the legal matter from our point of view,” he said.    

However, Chair Wendy Wolf said she felt the board's decision was made on appropriate legal and procedural interpretations.   

“The board made a determination, and I feel that that was done fairly,” she said. “And it was done looking at all the materials submitted. And I don't think there was any undue influence from opinions from others, but it was purely a reading on our ordinances.” 

The board unanimously denied the request for consideration. BHWP representative John O’Connell told the Register they are disappointed with the decision and are evaluating their options going forward.     

However, after the vote, Wolf said they would like to receive written materials well before their meetings. She said the board will be speaking with the code enforcement officer and the town manager to see if something could be codified so the board receives materials at least 48 hours in advance.   

In other business, the board denied a variance request for a property at 53 Commercial Street. Applicants Steven Hackman and Julia Lang said they wanted to be able to lease part of the building commercially, which was last done in 2023. However, according to the CEO, town code uses a 12-month timeframe for continuation in non-conforming properties, and there is no grandfathering clause. The board ultimately passed a motion saying the application does not meet statutory requirements for an undue hardship variance.  

“Let me reassure you that this does not represent any comment on your property or business,” Wolf said. “It is the Board of Appeals having to apply and interpret the law and the ordinances. And, as we said in the beginning, the capacity to get a variance is a very challenging one by design through the Maine statue.”