What started as a site plan review turned into an airing of grievances as abutters raised concerns about Boothbay Harbor’s affordable housing development. During the Dec. 13 planning board meeting, claims of ongoing runoff issues, flooded properties and blasting complications were directed at the Alexander Way development. By the end of the meeting, the board required the developers to return with an updated version of the approved 1989 subdivision plans. 

The board originally expected a site plan review and discussion of ordinances about excavation. According to the board, developers need a site plan review if they excavate more than 100 cubic yards; however, single-family homes can be exempt. Members discussed interpreting the development as multiple single-family units or one entity, which would require a site plan review. 

Boothbay Region Housing Trust (BRHT) President Debrah Yale answered the board’s questions and said the nonprofit organization has complied with ordinances and plan conditions. “I don’t want to leave you the impression we were doing something we were not authorized to do,” she said. Overall, town officials did not dispute it.

Yale said the project, which broke ground in January, is about 75% complete. However, board members said they were not made aware of the excavation issue until recently, and Chair Tom Churchill said it should have come to them before excavation began. According to town attorney John Cunningham, it had already started by the time Code Enforcement Officer Geoff Smith found out about the issue.   

“I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that since we didn’t address this up front, we shouldn't address it now,” said board member Merritt Blakeslee, arguing against the review exemption. 

The board did not come to a consensus by the time the discussion was opened to the public, and a stream of concerns.   

Suzanne Aleman came to the podium with a collection of photos, dates and complaints. Aleman lives in the only occupied house on Alexander Way and said the abutting developers created steep slopes, impacted water supply, and left debris. She also claimed blasting they have done may have had a negative impact on the sewer lines.   

Aleman raised blasting concerns earlier this year to the sewer district, which inspected the lines and found no issues, according to meeting minutes. “We don’t have any concerns at the moment regarding the development. We have not observed any deleterious effects from blasting, excavation, or runoff ...” superintendent Nick DeGemmis emailed the Register Dec. 14.  

Aleman was not the only displeased resident at the planning board meeting.   

“(My property is) flooded about every time it rains, and I've got photos to prove it,” said William Hallinan, who lives downhill on Kenney Field Drive. He said his garage floods and his backyard is a mess. Hallinan said he was told the development was going to take care of runoff but he has not seen a solution since. “They have got to find a way to address this problem. It's either that or I need to raise my house 10 feet,” he said.   

This was not the first time residents have raised concerns, and abutters also brought up water issues to the selectmen in September. According to BRHT, abutters have had concerns about runoff for at least 30 years, long before the organization was involved.  

In an email to the Register, BRHT said natural factors exacerbate the problem including this year’s high rain and a natural underground spring beyond their control. BRHT said it has met with abutters to address concerns, including a meeting in October with an engineer. BRHT said it also offered solutions such as the installation of an underground drain, part of the approved subdivision plan, at no cost to one of the neighbors, who declined.   

“Construction is never something that is pleasant for abutters; however, we have made every effort to maintain a respectful worksite, and to address their concerns to the extent they have allowed us to work with them,” BRHT wrote. “We genuinely believe that the site will drain better and be much more pleasant to live beside when it is completed. We are working diligently toward that end.” 

The meeting eventually focused on the 1989 approved subdivision plans. According to smith, they include a survey, contours, utility locations and conditions around a drainage plan. Smith told the Register subdivision approval does not expire, and the plans are still valid. However, he said site plan approval was not in the land use code in 1989, so it was not done. He said the recent realization of excavation triggered the site plan review.

The situation highlights a potential complication with town ordinances: Smith said there are multiple approved subdivisions that have not been developed. He encouraged a review of similar situations to avoid conflict. 

Ultimately, Churchill said it is up to the developer to fix any issues, and board member John Dunsford said the burden lies on the developer whether in 1989 or now.

The board concluded the developer needed to return with a revised plan to mitigate the water based on present-day conditions and approved by an engineer. BRHT said it would comply. 

“I don’t care what you have for a stormwater management plan, it's not working,” Churchill said. “... somehow come back to this board with a new stormwater plan that addresses the (current) issues.”