The Boothbay Harbor Planning Board had a case of motion sickness Nov. 14. The panel went through failed votes and motions on reconsidering a vote at the last meeting which split the potential warrant into two proposals.

Board member Chris Swanson said he thinks the board should continue keeping height limits separate from the rest of the proposal because he would hate to see the proposal lose solely due to the height limit. He said separating the two would give the proposal a shot if voters reject 35-foot height limits.

Alternate Jon Dunsford said the height limits and view corridors were drafted to go hand in hand. He said passing the proposal without passing the height limits sets a very dangerous precedent for the cost of development on Atlantic Avenue.

Member Tom Churchill said continuing with the proposed height limits would be okay, but he would suggest changing the way height is measured to the updated 2015 Maine DEP Chapter 1000 rules: Measuring from the downhill-most point rather than the median grade. This would prevent building heights on the harbor side of new developments from being potentially 40 to 50 feet high, said Churchill.

After a motion from Churchill, the board voted 3-2 not to change the method of height measurement.

Circling back to the perceived need to keep height limits with the rest of the proposal, Chair Bill Hamblen moved to keep the town-wide height change outside the proposal, but reinsert a 35-foot height limit back into the original proposal. The board has twice recently voted not to adopt the Maine DEP Chapter 1000 rules and clarified that the Chapter 1000 rules are a template, not legally binding, Hamblen said. The motion failed 3-2.

Swanson suggested the board revisit the idea of going back to a one-zone proposal.

“Right now, the two-zone proposal, in my estimation at least, might be in danger of being called spot zoning. Another way to accomplish exactly the same purpose which, again, changes none of the real outcomes except to increase flexibility within the zone would be to go to a one-zone scheme and instead to specify the water-dependent uses as a minimum percentage of the one zone.”

Swanson moved his suggestion, but no one seconded it. Members gave concerns that owners of the six existing maritime/water-dependent properties – which total 23 percent – would have to wait for another property in the district to change its use to maritime/water-dependent to be able to sell the land to developers wanting to change its use.

Board member John Hochstein's motion, to break view corridors out from the proposal to pair it with the height limits, got no second.

Member Margaret Perritt stressed the importance, due to public concern, that the town hire a planner to review the board's work.

“I just see us flailing around, here, and some guidance from outside would be very important, I think,” said Perritt.

Hamblen reminded the board, one of its recommendations to the selectmen is to have a planner review the proposal – a process which has not yet begun, said Selectmen's Chair Wendy Wolf.

“You all have to have a final recommendation and you've just had a (recommendation) to change the entire zoning recommendation,” said Wolf. “When you have a final zoning recommendation, that's the time for the independent review ... An expedited, focused, independent, objective, knowledgeable and thorough, but timely review with a limited scope that would look at what your recommendations are.”

Code Enforcement Officer Geoff Smith said the board received a brief response concerning the proposal from Maine Department of Environmental Protection's Colin Clark. Smith said that while a few things jumped out at Clark, most amounted to verbiage changes and generally minor issues – “nothing substantive." The only part Smith said Clark has not responded to is the high water setback – a proposed 25 feet for commercial structures and zero feet for maritime structures.

“He wanted to look over our data, but that's not unexpected, he just hasn't had the chance to do it yet,” Smith said. He expects to hear back from Clark within a couple weeks.

East side resident Marty Gleason implored the board to work toward bringing the proposal to a vote.

“We could not be more aware of how the east side has deteriorated over the years and how badly development is needed. We urge you in the strongest terms possible to stop kicking the can down the road. Allow the citizenry to vote ...” 

Applications

Tom and Sarah Clark, represented by Jake Ackerman, got approved for a one percent expansion to their non-conforming home at 58 Wall Point Road. Linekin Bay Holdings, LLC, represented by Zander Shaw of Knickerbocker Group, got approved to remove and replace parts of a structure at 92 Wall Point Road.

The board meets next at 7 p.m. Wednesday, Nov. 28.