BRUNSWICK

The Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously last week not to move forward with an appeal from residents who live near Miller Point regarding a shoreline stabilization project on the property of Rob and Nancy King.

The board met to determine whether non-abutting neighbors Richard Knox, Henry Heyburn and Scott Bodwell had proper standing to delay the project. The three had filed an appeal with the town on April 14, believing the Kings should obtain further vetting before moving forward.

Knox made his case for the three by claiming personalized injury from the project, citing Maine and U.S. Supreme Court definitions that such injury can arise from violation of property, financial or personal rights.

“In our case, we’re going to claim that our personal rights to the natural resources and the recreational value afforded by the resources have been lessened,” Knox said, along with degradation of the area’s aesthetic and environmental well being.

The three then began attempting to prove their case by outlining the amount of time they spend in and around the bay.

Knox pointed out his and Bodwell’s time volunteering as caretakers of Crow and White islands for the Harpswell Heritage Land Trust.

Heyburn said it would be impossible to chronicle the “thousands of hours” he has spent on the bay. He said he and his family spend a lot of time on Crow Island, which has a view of Miller Point.

Heyburn said that King “graciously” allowed his family to use his land for recreational purposes and that they walked the shoreline dozens of times, often having picnics where the proposed shoreline stabilization is to take place.

Heyburn characterized his use of Middle Bay as “consistent,” spanning decades. As for the proper standing to appeal, he said he believes the law, common sense and decency are on his side.

Knox referred to Crow Island as his “happy place,” now marred by a view of the shoreline project. The three showed a series of family pictures displaying their use of the bay and shoreline. They tied many of their family moments to the bay and surrounding islands.

Attorney John Cunningham, with Eaton Peabody, pointed out that quite simply, by the law, the appellants were not abutters and therefore do not have standing to move forward with an appeal.

“The appellants have to suffer an injury different from the general public, otherwise anyone in town could appeal every decision ever made in town. If all you had to do is prove you felt terribly upset by it, anyone could appeal all the time,” Cunningham said.

Cunningham said that as users of the bay, there is nothing involved in the project that would affect their ability to use the bay.

Cunningham likened the argument that the project diminishes the aesthetic value to a builder, with all the right permits to build a house, being shut down by someone who is offended trees had to be taken down to build.

Cunningham said personal feelings do not equate to personalized injury.

Finally, Cunningham showed the board both a “before” photo of the shoreline with trees falling into the bay followed by a nearly identical mock up of an “after” photo with the only difference being the absence of fallen trees and the addition of some rocks near the shore.

He then provided the board a photo of a nearby property that underwent the same work to confirm the end results of his “after” mock up.

John Poutree, chairman of the board of appeals, said he’s been on the board for 30 years and he said “having standing” to move forward with an appeal has always been an abutter, owner of property, someone who had some sort of vested interest, or a representative of those people that had written permission to speak.

Responses, from board members, revolving around Knox, Heyburn and Bodwell’s right to move forward with their appeal and having standing to do so, were delivered with a clear “no.”

dmcintire@timesrecord.com

The Times Record Sustaining Sponsor
We believe a community must be informed to thrive. bowdoin.edu