On Oct. 30, 2021, Boothbay Harbor Appeals Board remanded a decision back to the planning board regarding Eastside Waterfront Park’s proposal. The appeals board sent a letter seeking clarification on four points regarding Joseph and Jill Doyle’s appeal of the project abutting their Atlantic Avenue home.
On Jan. 31, 2023, the appeals board received a written response to its four questions dating back over a year ago. After a 90-minute review, the appeals board, once again, remanded the appeal back to the planning board seeking more information.
On Nov. 9, the planning board responded to the four questions, and sent a written response. The first question asked: “It’s not clear the planning board considered all proposed parking sites, and this should be made clear.” The board responded, it had considered all proposed parking sites. Municipal attorney John Cunningham simplified the board’s sentiment. “Yes, you did,” he said. “The appeals board is saying ‘Gee, when you said you considered all the parking, did you really mean that? And the answer is ‘yes.’”
Question 2 sought a planning board determination on whether parking is proposed on the concrete pier, if the structure is rebuilt, and will be for a different purpose. The board responded there was no proposal to have any parking on the north pier; as for the south pier, parking remains for the same purpose as before the project.
Question 3 asked: “Should the planning board consider a communication from the Department of Environmental Protection delivered with its order and determine whether concerns raised require altering the decision?” The board determined information in DEP’s email didn’t impact the board’s decision.
Question 4 asked: “If the planning board reviewed all required project permits and were later verified and updated?” The board responded an applicant does not need to show proof of permits when obtaining a municipal building permit.
The appeals board only mentioned a concern with one response. Three board members, Wendy Wolf, Rosemary Bourette and Ronald Cohen believed the planning board’s response regarding “greatest practical extent” lacked specificity for a proposed parking lot in the southern zone (Question 1). Wolf complimented the planning board on providing better responses than in the past, but she still wanted a detailed response. “There was no justification in the finding of fact. It merely stated the applicant complied with the greatest practical extent,” she said. “I’m not prepared to vacate the entire provision, but they have not explained how they reached such a ruling.”
But member Lawrence Rebel disagreed. He believed the planning board adequately responded to all four questions. “I have no further questions,” Rebel said. “I try to look at the big picture, and try not to look too far into the weeds. The property is already non-conforming. The changes make it less non-conforming making the situation better, not worse.”
Wolf reported she would work with the planning board in hopes of a prompt response. Doyle attorney Kristin Collins asked if the board would discuss its thoughts on the other three questions at the next hearing.Wolf told her those responses would be included in the final appeal decision.
Neither the Doyles nor Eastside Waterfront Park officials were satisfied with the decision. “I’m just a little frustrated because we really gave the planning board an opportunity to explain their rationale in approving the permit, and they weren’t willing to do it,” Collins said.
John O’Connell of Eastside Waterfront Park also disagreed with the decision. He believed the planning board gave a proper ruling. “I was surprised, but it’s a big project,” he said. “The planning board properly addressed the issue despite all of (the Doyles’) protestations. The planning board looked at all the parking in excruciating detail, but it wasn’t enough.”
As far as the “greatest practical extent” ruling, Collins believed the two sides could reach an agreement. She proposed moving the current southern parking to a northern location which would abide by the 75-foot shoreline zone requirement. "An obvious alternative location for the parking lot that was outside of the 75-foot setback was not considered or discussed, demonstrating the lack of depth in the Planning Board’s review of this issue," said Collins.
O’Connell believed the parking location was for Eastside Waterfront Park’s officials to decide.“We picked the location from our perspective,” he said. “And it’s our property, and our prerogative to select what fits our needs.”
