The Boothbay Harbor Board of Appeals unanimously agreed to approve the appeal brought to the board by the Perkins family of Boothbay Harbor at the board’s Feb. 24 meeting.

This appeal voids the planning board's approval of the Congregational Church of Boothbay Harbor's application to perform construction work and repairs, and sends the application back to the planning board for further consideration, according to Boothbay Harbor Code Enforcement Officer Geoff Smith.

The planning board originally approved the church's plan unanimously on Dec. 15, 2014 after two meetings and a site plan visit. Two conditions were on the approval: that work hours would be between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. only, and that the Perkins' property, which is directly to the south of the church, would be shielded from the illumination of the church steeple.

The church's plans include renovations, repairs and additions to the church, including the installation of an elevator and sprinkler system. The outside renovations are intended to create a more defined entry to the church from the parking lots, along with improving access through the building.

From the start, the Perkinses have had a few problems with the plans, feeling that the current plans create a huge adverse impact on their family.

The distance between the Congregational Church and the Perkins’ property is only 11 inches, and much of the work replacing the roof and adjusting siding would take place on that side of the church. A lot of the work is scheduled for the summer, when the Perkins' kids are out of school.

“We're protective of our privacy and just think it would be nice if our children were able to use their own back yard this summer without being in danger,” Laura and Tom Perkins write in an email to the Boothbay Register.

According to Sue Mendolson of Knickerbocker Group at the first planning board meeting Dec. 10, the work on the south side of the church would require scaffolding. Since only 11 inches exists between the church and the Perkins' property line, the scaffolding would cross onto their land. This means that construction crews and materials would also most likely be on their land.

“We feel the representatives from the church probably started off on the wrong foot day one, because it certainly sounded to us like they were coming on our property and doing whatever they wanted, whether we liked it or not. So that created some trust issues right off the bat, and it's probably deteriorated even a bit more since then,” Laura and Tom Perkins write in the email.

In a letter sent to the board of appeals, the Perkinses state that the area where scaffolding was going to be set up is in an area of their yard where their kids and pets play and they hold family cookouts and gatherings with visitors.

“In other words, they want to ... ruin the majority of our summer (or possibly longer if anything goes wrong),” the letter reads.

At the board of appeals meeting, contractor Eric Marden said the construction crews could get the work done without scaffolding and would not have to set one foot on the Perkins' property.

“It's not preferable, but it can be done,” agreed Nate Kiffer of Frohmiller Construction.

Planning Board Chairman Mike Tomko had previously praised Marden's work at completing projects without unduly impacting neighbors. He used the 8 Wharf Street rebuilding project as an example.

During the Board of Appeals meeting, Tom Perkins stated they felt the decision by the planning board was rushed, and with construction scheduled to start in April there was time to go back and reconsider the negative impacts of the construction on their family.

“The planning board made every effort to please the Perkinses and took the time to review the application,” Marden said. According to Tomko, the final planning board meeting for approval was three hours long.

The Perkins' appeal was made under Chapter 170, Article V, Section 170-60 of the town code; specifically, that they felt the review of the property and discussions of the planning board did not take the proper amount of time in order to minimize the adverse impact on their adjacent property.

The board agreed, and unanimously granted the appeal with Chairman Gloria Taliana, Howard Hennigar, and new appeals board member Scott See in agreement. Appeals board member Palmer Payne was not present.

“We are very confident the plan will go ahead,” said Bill Hilsher after the meeting. Hilsher is the chairman of the church’s building committee.

“I don't see how additional time is going to help,” senior church trustee Peggy Pinkham said. “There is no new information to go over.”

“I won't say the board of appeals made the wrong decision,” Tomko said. “It's a challenging review when you have neighbors in such close proximity. My ultimate goal would be a win-win where both parties walk away happy; that didn't happen this time, thus the appeal. I'm hopeful our next review leads to a more positive result.”

“We appreciate the difficult and thoughtful work of the appeals board, and hope to make some progress now that it's headed back to the planning board for further review,” Laura and Tom Perkins write in the same email.