A hearing for a Nov. 6 referendum asking voters if they approve a change to the 2015 comprehensive plan brought about 100 people to the Boothbay Harbor Fire Station Aug. 27. The board arranged for town attorney John Cunningham to be present and to answer questions about the legal world of the comprehensive plan due to feedback that the proposals conflict with the plan. Due to attorney-client privileges, all questions were vetted by Chair Wendy Wolf who gave the attorney permission question by question.

Wolf said the vote would not be on the proposed zoning ordinances, but whether or not the town should move forward to amend the comprehensive plan. The decision to move forward with a vote is to work parallel to the planning board as the final details are put into the proposals, said Wolf, who clarified further that a decision to move forward could potentially mean three separate warrants spaced out over time.

About 20 residents on both sides of the issues spoke. After two hours of hearing the public, it became clear to the board that a majority of the audience, despite the differences in opinion, felt a Nov. 6 question unnecessary.

“I would like to see the select board drop the referendum vote,” said Ken Fitch. “I would like the select board to allow the planning board to continue their work with one provision: that there be some advice, strong advice that if they continue to stay on the track they're on there is the potential for litigation … There has to be other alternatives for what they want to do that can avoid forcing us to look at the comprehensive plan and go through the process … I think if you can see a disaster coming, you need to do whatever you can do to try and stop it.”

Resident Darrell Gudroe asked Cunningham if a referendum is needed.

“No. It's a simple enough answer,” Cunningham said and added that his understanding of the referendum vote was to see if the public would support all the potential costs that may come with arranging a review and revision of part of the comprehensive plan.

Said Gudroe, “I find it difficult to understand why the select board after some precedence of the planning board doesn't feel comfortable just moving forward … with some kind of change to make correct the zoning on the east side. It doesn't have to be for any one developer's purpose … Let's not pretend that (the comp plan) is the Bible we've been living by, let's treat it as it is and as it should be: it's a legal document. Let's not give it any more value than it's had in our history.”

Patty Minerich noted a legal conflict should not exist if no changes have been formally proposed. She suggested that since the planning board has not finished its proposals, the process is not yet in the select board’s purview.

Minerich added that from direction given by Lincoln County Planner Bob Faunce in December 2017, both the selectmen and planning board knew comprehensive plan amendments might be necessary. Addressing the board’s uncertainty on whether or not the town supports a change to the comprehensive plan, Minerich compared the voter turnout for ratifying the 2015 comprehensive plan, 42 voters, to the attendance of the December 2017 meeting which showcased support from about 130 people for east side rezoning.

Minerich handed out a letter endorsed by 85 residents and interested parties asking selectmen to reverse their decision about a town vote on whether or not to amend the comprehensive plan. The letter also asked selectmen to have the planning board address any conflicts with the comprehensive plan and submit its findings alongside the zoning proposals.

Boothbay Harbor resident and Paul Coulombe attorney Bill Logan pointed out that when the advisory workgroup passed its recommendations onto the planning board, it insisted the recommendations were consistent with the comprehensive plan.

“Certainly we have distinguished counsel here, and DEP, who is saying take another look at it,” said Logan. “And that's okay, but the process hasn't come out of the planning board yet. That's where it should stay … If it takes a little longer, then it takes a little longer …”

Fitch reflected Logan's and several others' sentiment that the issue of conflict between the proposals and the comprehensive plan is not the issue of the selectmen, but of the planning board. Likewise, most who spoke agreed with Fitch a referendum vote is ill-advised.

“I cannot believe that that room cannot come up with something that meets that criteria that they can then pass along to you and then as a town we can have a meaningful warrant and discussion,” said Fitch. “I'm looking around and I'm seeing this is fracturing this town little by little, piece by piece. That's not what any of us want.”

The only request for response from Cunningham that was denied during the hearing was a question from Coulombe: “One of the statements in the comprehensive plan talks about multi-use, that the town should encourage multi-use. There's a section that says to preserve maritime and working waterfront as well, but it does not say 'exclusively.' So, would you care to address that specifically?”

Cunningham explained he was only allowed to respond when requested by the board.

Coulombe endorsed Fitch's idea of working together, that a referendum vote is unnecessary and that there must be a way forward for the community as well as the planning board. Addressing properties of interest on Atlantic Avenue, Coulombe said his only interest is to improve what already exists and to continue supporting the lobstering and fishing industries.

“A restaurant … a home … even a duplex could take place (of marine uses) according to the current zoning, so there is no guarantee under the current zoning laws that ensures maritime/working waterfront,” said Coulombe.

Addressing a question from George Doran on the concreteness of a comprehensive plan, Cunningham said it is not, and that such plans are “living, breathing documents.” Cunningham said the plan goes into detail on the district and urges that maritime and water-dependent uses are not only protected, but that they prevail over others.

Because the wants and needs of a town are an “ever-shifting target,” Cunningham said in addressing a question from John O’Connell, plans should be revisited on a regular basis and changes made whenever necessary. He said the importance of an issue often weighs in when needed changes are identified between cycles of review.

Wolf moved to not move forward with the referendum. Support was unanimous.

A second vote was taken about a freedom of access act request from Logan, for the board to turn over all its records on communications with Cunningham. The board voted unanimously to grant the request.