Nearly 16 months ago, the Boothbay Harbor Board of Appeals sent a letter seeking more information about Eastside Waterfront Park’s building permit. On Jan. 31, at 6 p.m., the delay will end with the board reconvening, and possibly ruling, on the appeal.
Joe and Jill Doyle live on Atlantic Avenue and have appealed twice regarding Eastside Waterfront Park’s project. The first appeal, involving a site design review, was denied by the appeals board. The Doyles appealed the decision to Lincoln County Superior Court. Before the court ruled, the Doyles submitted another appeal which will be addressed this month. State statute requires all municipal appeals be heard prior to deciding a pending court decision.
The second appeal was delayed by a request for clarification regarding parking. A letter was sent requesting planning board clarification on four points. On Nov. 9, the planning board responded to the four questions, and sent a written response. With the responses in hand, the appeals board may now be ready to rule on the Doyles’ second appeal.
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.
Both the Doyles and Eastside Waterfront Preservation Park officials are optimistic the appeals board will rule in their favor. During a Jan. 4 interview, Doyle attorney Kristin Collins said: “We expect because the planning board didn’t do anything to correct the original findings by taking new evidence and didn’t change DEP’s analysis, that this part, of this project, is not in compliance,” she said. “So I would think the board of appeals would (also) agree the planning board didn’t look critically into the project’s design.”
Collins believes the park has not explained how the project meets municipal ordinances regarding “greatest practical extent” provisions. “The appeals board asked how this meets ‘greatest practical extent?’ And they didn’t. In the letter, they just respond, ‘It does,’” she said.
John O’Connell is the Boothbay Harbor Waterfront Preservation Project’s board chairman. He responded to Boothbay Register questions on Jan. 6. O’Connell is convinced the appeals board’s response letter supports the park’s position. “We believe the planning board did a good job responding to the four items. We think the Doyles’ appeal should be denied,” he said.
Waterfront Preservation Park also wrote a Jan. 5 letter to the editor titled “Looking forward” explaining their plan after the “expected” appeals board ruling.
“The park and marina building permit was appealed by an abutter on Dec. 16, 2021. The appeal was followed by many months of demands for changes to our 2020 approved site plan by the abutter. The demands were based primarily on a letter solicited from the Maine DEP alleging our parking area was illegal. The DEP has since abandoned that position, and on Nov. 9, 2022, the planning board reviewed and affirmed their original finding that all of our proposed parking conforms with town ordinances. Despite all of the allegations of illegality and numerous town board meetings, the park site plan remains unchanged since the appeal was filed more than a year ago. On Jan. 31, the board of appeals will offer a final decision on the park and marina building permit appeal,” board members wrote.
Joe Doyle took exception to their response. He described the letter as “untrue with misinformation.” Doyle explained he initially supported the park in its original form, but later became concerned about safety and environmental issues.
“I probably want the park more than anybody, but I want it green and safe,” he said. The Doyles hired two engineering firms which produced reports supporting safety concerns. Doyle described the reports as detailing problems with the pier’s construction, too much impervious surface and wastewater discharge problems.
O’Connell dismissed the Doyles’ claims as another attempt at delaying the project. He coupled both appeals as tactical.“This is all about delaying the project. We’ve received all the permits requested, and are ready to proceed,” O’Connell said.
In the letter to the editor, park officials refer to the Doyles as “abutters.” But they are more than that. The Doyles are also donors. Joe Doyle initially supported the project because “he thought it was a good idea to own property near such a project.”
But concerns regarding an oversized splash pad along with other environmental and safety concerns resulted in the Doyles taking a closer look. In May, Joe Doyle returned home and discovered a splash pad. He reportedly tried to contact park officials about the pad. Joe Doyle said he called O’Connell and wanted to talk about the project. “What’s cooking and can we meet to talk about this,” he reportedly asked O’Connell. Doyle reported O’Connell told him he could learn about it on their website, and hung up.”
O’Connell denies this conversation happened, but he does say other attempted conversations failed for one reason. “They don’t want the project,” he said. “I think they’ve forgotten about what was there before (Cap’n Fish’s Motel). This is just another attempt to delay the project,” he said.
