The Boothbay Harbor Planning Board voted Sept. 26 to recommend a two-zone solution be vetted, then go to voters. The decision did not come lightly.

Board Chair Bill Hamblen rolled the idea out with little opposition last meeting, but three board members and one alternate said they would prefer an impartial professional planner review the process thus far and make a recommendation from a fresh perspective.

Member Chris Swanson was the first to speak out against the new proposal, saying it appears to be spot zoning and “skirting” the issue of balancing the comprehensive plan and needed changes.

“I don't know if you speak for the other members of the board, but you don't speak for me on the two-zone system,” Swanson said. “I'm very much against the formation of two zones … What's worse is that it seems to be splitting the current maritime-water dependent zone into the 'haves' and 'have-nots.'”

Swanson said it is concerning that properties in the proposed maritime district would not benefit from the expanded use table in the proposed limited commercial district. He was the first to suggest the town hire a planner to balance the comprehensive plan with modifications to the table of uses.

“What that professional help gave us was something totally different than what we're looking at tonight,” he said. “I say we need to go back for more professional help … that's going to give us something that's going to work.”

Also entertaining that idea were board members Tom Churchill and Margaret Perritt and alternate Lee Corbin.

Corbin said she was concerned splitting the zone would minimize the area protected for marine and water dependent uses. Churchill said he is still not convinced a two-zone approach is the only way forward. He said he could see supporting it if there is no possible way forward with a single-zone approach.

However, Perritt said she is on the fence.

“We have been working hard … for a long time and I would hate for us to get caught up in an 'aha' moment' and say 'This is the way we can make it work' if it's not good for the town.”

Hamblen disagreed that the board needs a planner for the east side zoning proposal since it had two planners at its disposal for six months during the advisory workgroup process. He also pointed out, no such uses would be taken away in the limited commercial district, just that the proposed maritime district would essentially be exclusively water-dependent uses.

Hamblen received a written reply from town attorney John Cunningham on the legality of the two-zone proposal. Cunningham cited attorney-client privilege for most of his response, but left enough room for Hamblen to clearly explain that despite not having a vetted proposal to analyze, the bones of the proposal show no evidence of spot zoning and appear to honor the 2015 comprehensive plan.

Hamblen explained that illegal spot zoning, as Cunningham understands it, is an ordinance change, inconsistent with a town's comprehensive plan, and made for the benefit of a single parcel or limited area.

Hamblen reviewed each board member's leaning on the two-zone approach and considered how the board should act.

“Frankly, I think the concept of taking a step back, hiring yet another professional planner thinking that they're going to come up with some magic solution that solves the conundrum of the comp plan and economic development in some way that makes this all happen is just tilting at windmills,” said Hamblen.

Sentiment from the public forum was split with some preferring to carry the process to a new planner while others preferred moving forward with the two-zone proposal. Corey Tibbetts said a new planner would not be unlike asking a doctor for a second opinion. Physician Judy Stone agreed the analogy fits.

Paul Coulombe was unhappy with what he said seemed like a sudden shift in the board and general hostility from the public.

“I've been waiting two years for zoning to get done in order to purchase Captain Fish ... Well, I'm not going to purchase Captain Fish and if I don't, no one else will … You're losing the number one investor in this community.”

Coulombe said he wanted to see the board make a decision, one way or another, and bring the zoning proposal to a town vote.

“What's been in place for 30 years has not worked and we need to do something in this community to turn around … There's nobody else coming. I have talked to every developer in Maine and begged them to come to Boothbay Harbor and they're not coming … After hearing what I've heard tonight, I'm gone. I'm out, so congratulations … I'm embarrassed. I'm embarrassed by what was said tonight ... I'm sick of this, I'm not going to stand for it any longer.”

Perritt said the one obvious point the process has brought is that a consultant will at some point be needed to look at Boothbay Harbor as a whole considering the central issues of an aging population and changing environment, but that is “down the road.”

“We're dealing with one little section of town right now. We have someone who has invested in property here and no matter what we think about his investments … he's made some improvements here. I might not agree with what he's doing, you might not agree, but he's doing good stuff. So we don't want to discourage him and yet we don't want to make our longtime residents unhappy. So, when I say I'm on the fence, I feel like we're really sitting on a fence. Having said all of that, I think we can deal with the moment and then look ahead to our future …”

Alternate Jon Dunsford, elevated to voting member in John Hochstein’s absence, proposed the board move forward with a recommendation to the select board to have a vote on a two-zone solution. Hamblen seconded the motion which carried 3-2.