Dear Editor:

After 10 months of complex hearings, the Boothbay Board of Appeals revoked CMBG’s building permits. The Gardens lost their right to continue construction, and lost the right to use the building and parking lots they had built while under appeal. 

The serious dilemma they now face – a massive, environmentally-damaging project built without permission – is a problem entirely of their own making. As Maine’s assistant attorney general said recently about a project under appeal in Phippsburg, “Most people in this situation who have a permit, knowing there’s an appeal, they hold off. It’s rare that someone acts on a permit under appeal.”

CMBG lost their entire permits, despite a last-minute claim that only their work in the Watershed Overlay Zone was denied. The planning board issued the permits as complete documents, and the Board of Appeals revoked them. Permits cannot be divided by zone at the last minute because a wealthy developer complains. This “split-permit” idea was discussed and denied by the board of appeals on Nov. 9th. 

And yet on Nov. 17th the Boothbay code enforcement officer issued a “stop-work order” which is in effect a permission slip for CMBG to keep working. The order ignores the Board of Appeals decision, violates the due process of the appellants (my family), and is contrary to Boothbay ordinances.

Specifically, the “stop-work order” allows CMBG to continue working outside the watershed line as long as they intend to apply for a new Planning Board permit. (That’s a months-long process which may fail.) Also, it allows CMBG to use watershed parking lots for this year’s Garden’s Aglow, despite the prohibition on all watershed activity. And finally, the order fails to enforce the original watershed line, which is the only legal boundary now that the permit which CMBG used to blast and bulldoze a new line has been revoked. 

The CEO’s order circumvents the board of appeals and acts as an ad hoc “permit” for the Gardens. But neither CMBG nor the CEO is above the law. 

Municipal law can be a murky thing, but the CEO’s order is unethical and may well be illegal. Boothbay would be better served if the order was rescinded and the board of appeals decision was respected. 

Jason Anthony

Bristol