Eastside Waterfront Park turned into an administrative merry-go-round last month after a court remanded key issues to the Boothbay Harbor Planning Board.

Lincoln County Superior Court released its ruling April 30, ordering a new public hearing for the project site plan and more information on its shoreland zoning permit. The rulings put the issue back to the beginning stages of the permit process. 

The conflict went to Maine Superior Court in June 2023, as reported in the Register. The court recently ruled based on consolidated briefs over issues between Boothbay Harbor Waterfront Preservation (BBHWP) and abutters Joe and Jill Doyle. The town of Boothbay Harbor is also involved.   

Both key parties said they felt the recent rulings were fair and see benefits in bringing the issues back through the process. Joe Doyle said he wants a park with green space and seating next to his property, but he is contesting some development of the area, including parking spaces, a splashpad and potential commercial development. “Obviously, we're thrilled with the court's findings. They seem to be quite in the favor of having a park someday.” 

BBHWP representative John O'Connell said he welcomes direction and clarification from the courts, even if the group is frustrated with further delays in the project, which began in 2019. “In fact, we're glad we had the opportunity to have a fresh eye look at the overall situation,” he said. 

In the April decision, Justice Daniel Billings vacated the Planning Board’s approval of the park’s site plan application. The site plan had been revised several times, and an amended version was upheld by the Board of Appeals in 2021. However, that decision was challenged by the Doyles, who claim they did not receive proper notice during the process.  

The court’s ruling remanded the plan back to the Planning Board for reconsideration at a new, “properly noticed public hearing.” As part of the site plan process, town ordinance requires a notice of a permit application public hearing to be mailed to abutters and published at least twice in local newspapers. “There is no record of evidence of the Town completing either form of notice,” the ruling said.  

According to the ruling, the Doyles never had the opportunity to present to the Planning Board, depriving them of a critical part of the process. Kristin Collins, the Doyles’ lawyer, said the court is telling the town to go back to the beginning and apply more scrutiny to the process with the people who are most affected at the table.  

“We're going to do what we would have done if we had gotten the chance from the start, which is to point out all the reasons why it shouldn't have been approved in the first place,” said Collins. 

As of publication, a public hearing date has not been set. 

In the second key ruling, the court remanded a shoreland zoning permit back to the Planning Board for further findings of fact. After being approved by the Planning Board, the Board of Appeals rejected the permit in spring 2023, saying there was insufficient evidence to show a handful of parking spaces on the south side of the property met setback requirements. BBHWP later brought the issue to court.  

The court ruled the record around the Planning Board’s original approval of the shoreland permit was wanting. The court said the Planning Board failed to include specific findings related to the setback requirement issues and “it is impossible for the Court to meaningfully review whether (the board’s) ultimate conclusion was supported by substantial record of evidence.” The court retained jurisdiction of the issue and remanded it back to the planning board to produce findings, tied to a reviewable record, within 30 days.  

“The judge basically said, just correct the record,” O’Connell said. “Use the information that you used to make the decision. Put that in the record because then there'd be no question.” 

In the court ruling, the town appears to be criticized for several such missteps. In a statement to the Register, Boothbay Harbor Town Manager Julia Latter said, “The court's ruling is not a disposition of the matter. Instead, it remands issues to be considered again or in greater detail. Because it is an ongoing litigation matter, at this time, we will have no further comment.” 

The court’s criticism is some rare common ground which the Doyles and BBHWP share. 

“(The court) put the thumb on the town for not basically doing things and saying it correctly," said BBHWP’s Bob McKay. O’Connell added, “Reading between the lines, you know, we're not in the hot seat, shall we say. It's more administrative shortcomings throughout the process.”  

Collins said she would like to see the issue given more scrutiny from the town, the same scrutiny she said should be applied to any project whether commercial or otherwise. “It's about not giving the park a free pass just because there's a perception that people want it, and scrutinizing it as much as they would scrutinize a hotel development and taking the time and effort to apply the ordinances,” she said.  

Moving forward, O’Connell said BBHWP will likely have to make minor amendments to the park plans but he hopes they won't delay the project further. Both the Doyles and BBHWP said they are not planning further court action currently and want to proceed through the municipal process.