Aug. 26, on-site wastewater treatment and dimensional requirements returned to the discussion table during Boothbay Harbor planning board's public merit review hearing for Boothbay Harbor Waterfront Preservation (BBHWP) East Side Park's amended site plan application.   

For on-site wastewater treatment, Mitch Rasor of Rasor Landscape Architecture, who handles BBHWP’s permitting, said they are not proposing a disposal system. Instead, BBHWP wants to recycle the splashpad's wastewater, as well as any stormwater, snowmelt and runoff that enters, to irrigate the lawn. This plan includes building subsurface tanks and filtering the water to a drinkable standard.  

The plan has a National Resources Protection Act (NPRA) permit from Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Rasor said that a Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) permit was not required as the water will not be cycled back into the splashpad, so it will not come into contact with people. 

Discussion focused on § 170-69 (H), which says that a development shall be served by public sewer if it is available within 500 feet of the project parcel and § 170-55, stating that a new subsurface sewage disposal system must have a no less than 100 horizontal foot setback from the high water line of a perennial water body.

There was also a state statute that public sewer connection is necessary if the system is within 200 feet (38 MSR § 1160), or when required by municipal ordinance (30 (A) MRS § 3405), and a letter from Boothbay Harbor Sewer District asking for a comprehensive management plan from BBHWP, as the district is licensed to accept wastewater and not stormwater or other non-sanitary flows.  

David Cody suggested the board do further research as the local and state guidelines likely did not have splashpads in mind.  

In accordance with § 170-69 (H) and § 170-55, the board moved to disapprove BBHWP’s application to install an on-site subsurface system to treat the splashpad’s wastewater rather than connect to municipal sewer. It passed 4-0; Cody abstained. 

As reported in the Register, a development must have a minimum land area of 10,000 square feet per use under ordinance § 170-28 for dimensional requirements. 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. The abutters argue there are seven uses: Commercial marina, buying station, park, grocery store, amphitheater/event location and eating pavilion.   

During the Aug .12 meeting, what uses should be considered accessory to the marina and what should be taken separately was discussed. After reviewing the original 2020 approval and the definition of a marina under § 170-113, the board unanimously approved, as a single use, that the south pier can have docking facilities for boats, boat repair and construction, indoor and outdoor storage of boats, and boat launching and hauling. The north pier is limited to docking facilities. 

It was voted 5-0 that the board’s predecessors did not include “seafood products, processing, warehousing, sales (retail and wholesale)” in the 2020 approval, and that BBHWP may not conduct those operations without approval from the code enforcement officer (CEO) or the board.  

The pavilion generated much discussion. There was confusion on the usability of the restaurant building. BBHWP board member Marion Coleman clarified that it was not functional, with no cooking equipment or plumbing. Kristin Collins, the abutters' lawyer, disagreed and said it is a functional building.  

“If you're going to say there's no use, say there's no use. There can be no use because what's going to happen otherwise is (BBHWP will) say it's an accessory building to the park, and (they) can do anything as long as it's related,” she said.  

Chair Merritt Blakeslee moved that if BBHWP proposes to convert the north pier’s existing disused and non-conforming restaurant and associated structures into a pavilion, it must return to the town for all required approvals. This includes, but is not limited to, articles four, five, six and eight of town ordinance. It passed 4-1, with Cody opposed. 

The board clarified the motion is not limited to physical changes to the building; a change of use would also require approval. 

BBHWP lawyer Anthony Muri objected, saying that the prior planning board included the pavilion as an accessory use to the park in 2020. Blakeslee returned that the motion does not address what was approved or not in 2020, just that any changes will have to go through the normal town permitting processes.  

The park area, including the splashpad, and the neighborhood grocery store were deemed 5-0 as uses approved in 2020, and consistent with the ordinance. BBHWP’s amended application was unanimously found to be compliant with § 170-28, containing three uses: Marina, grocery store and park.  

On the issue of event-hosting, the board will revisit during ordinance § 170-70. 

The board briefly discussed lighting and glare (§ 170-45) and whether after-hours or security lighting would be used at the grocery store. The matter was tabled.  

The ruling on the expiration status of BBHWP’s 2020 site plan review is still expected to be conveyed by CEO Dan Feeney by the Sept. 9 meeting.  

The full recording is on BRTV’s Facebook Page.