Aug. 12, Boothbay Harbor's planning board continued its public merit review hearing for Boothbay Harbor Waterfront Preservation’s (BBHWP) East Side Park amended site plan application. 

Business began with BBHWP's Aug. 4 motion asking, for the second time, that planning board member Tom Minerich be recused or disqualified. As reported in the Register, the organization previously questioned the then-chair's impartiality in a Dec. 16, 2025 motion, and scrutinized his residential project at 51 Union St., for alleged ordinance non-compliance and permit mishandling. The board ultimately rejected the motion for recusal.  

At the Aug. 12 meeting, Chair Merritt Blakeslee presented a "Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" document providing context behind BBHWP's renewed motion. In its May meeting, the planning board requested the parties send a brief on what legal obligations they believe BBHWP has under ordinance § 170-70, which deals with mitigating the effects of a commercial property on an adjoining residential property.  

Per the document, BBHWP's June brief argued the board should disregard the mandate of § 170-70 due to "inherent vagueness." Minerich then sent the town attorney a memorandum rebutting this argument and asked for it to be forwarded to fellow board members. BBHWP's motion claimed this was another example of Minerich disregarding applicable law and not acting impartially as a public official.  

BBHWP lawyer Anthony Muri further argued, the memo was advocacy, not just the expression of opinion. "The motivation goes to the bias question: What motivated the doing of this project, this legal project? ... If it was motivated by an intention to provide, in any way, assistance to the Doyle camp in this, then it is more than a simple indication of an opinion or position on an issue," he said.  

Blakeslee responded that unless there was concrete evidence of Minerich's intent, then it was speculation. He also said the Aug. 4 motion did not cite any ordinance, statute, rule, or case law beyond those in the Dec.16 submission to support BBHWP's argument.  

According to the proposed findings of fact, Maine Municipal Association's manual for planning boards says the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, or law court, deems it legally permissible and not evidence of bias for a board member to review materials submitted by the parties in advance of a meeting and prepare a memo or an outline of issues/findings to assist the board. Also, the law court said the court would probably not find a member biased if they expressed an opinion regarding proper interpretation of an applicable ordinance or statute. 

Before voting, member David Cody raised concern with the proposed findings of fact document, believing it could taint proceedings. Minerich recused himself from the vote, and alternate member Jim Mahoney took over. The board rejected the motion to recuse Minerich 4-1, Cody opposed.  

Discussion turned to the possible expiration of BBHWP’s 2020 site plan review. During the July 8 meeting, the board asked that Code Enforcement Officer Dan Feeney convey a ruling on expiration within 30 days. The CEO could not meet the deadline but is expected to decide by the Sept. 9 meeting. The board voted unanimously to proceed with the hearing regardless.

The board considered dimensional requirements. Under ordinance § 170-28, a development must have a minimum land area of 10,000 square feet per use. The park property is 36,590 square feet; BBHWP's amended plan outlines three uses: marina, outdoor recreation/conservation (park), and a neighborhood grocery store. They removed two residential uses from the original 2020 plan.  

There was confusion about the grocery store as, at the July 8 meeting, BBHWP President John O’Connell said one would not be opened. Board members said they were also told during a site visit there would not be a grocery store. BBHWP clarified it's not officially amending its application and maintains three uses.  

The abutters argue there are seven uses: commercial marina, buying station, park, grocery store, amphitheater/event location and eating pavilion.  

A discussion of which aspects constitute approved accessory uses and which should be considered a separate use ensued, with a focus on marina operations. The parties were asked to send a brief to the board with further explanation.  

The board voted 4-1 (Minerich opposed) that BBHWP provided evidence that it received all required permits and was in compliance with ordinance § 170-28.

On the matter of road system adequacy, § 170-69(B)(1) states that vehicle access to the site must be on roads that can accommodate additional traffic generated by the development. BBHWP provided a traffic study from A T.Y. Lin International (TYLin). The board agreed 5-0 that the amended application requests no changes to the 2020 approved plan that require compliance with requirements of the ordinance.

For access into the site, § 170-69(B)(2) says an applicant is responsible for providing turning lanes, traffic directional islands and traffic controls within public streets to accommodate additional traffic from the development, avoid congestion and safeguard pedestrians. According to the hearing outline document, the abutters pointed out that there are no sidewalks on the western side of Atlantic Avenue, and no crosswalk on the eastern side to deal with the park's significant pedestrian traffic. They argue BBHWP must amend its plans to provide a sidewalk and work with the town on a crosswalk.  

It was pointed out by the board that the issue of sidewalk and crosswalk locations is largely under state or town purview. 

Mitch Rasor of Rasor Landscape Architect, who handles BBHWP’s permitting, said the development is eager to work with the town to add these features, but it was not a condition of the park's 2020 approval, and its permits don’t require it.  

Kristin Collins, the abutter's lawyer, responded that the splashpad is larger and closer to the road than in the 2020 plan, causing pedestrian issues. Using the fireworks on July 4 and drone show on July 17 as examples, abutter John Doyle echoed the sentiment, saying that a lot of foot traffic funnels from the splashpad into the road. 

There was talk about BBHWP having shrubbery or a fence between the splashpad and road to increase public safety and better control road crossings. The issue was tabled until § 170-70. 

The board again voted 5-0 that the amended application requests no changes to the 2020 approved plan that require compliance with the requirements of the ordinance. The same conclusion was reached for § 170-69(F), which outlines the location and screening/landscaping requirements for dumpsters.  

The next meeting is Aug. 26 at 6 p.m.  

Full recording on BRTV's Facebook Page.