It's Earth Day So Let's Talk About Cross River!

Why has Boothbay not developed environmental protection ordinances specific to Cross River?

Kalen Emsley Unsplash

Last night I attended the planning board meeting about a challenge made by Colin A Clark of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the State Attorney General over a permit for building on Cross River, the last undeveloped shoreline in the region.

There is a lot of money to be made in shoreline property, and so developers want to develop it, while others are concerned with the protection of our shoreline and waters and their habitats. During the meeting, the latter was represented by local residents and abutters, while the main focus of the meeting was on satisfying the letter of the law, as the planning board is supposed to do.

The real issue is the lack of tailor-made ordinances for the development of the Cross River shoreline, which in their current state allows for developers to have their go at it, as noted by one local resident who testified that the decision made now sets precedence, asking “Is this what Boothbay wants ?”

The first thing learned was that there had been emailing correspondences between Mr. Clark’s office, The AG, and the planning board, but it was decided that there was no need to read the emails aloud leaving the public in the dark about the issues that caused the Department of Environmental Protection and the Attorney General to challenge the Planning Board’s decision. I am in touch with Mr. Clark’s office about that and hope to have more information in my next post.

When Local resident Duncan Slade testified that there were bald eagles and other endangered species on the Cross River shoreline habitat, the board quickly brushed it off as something they already know and do not need to be told about.

I, however, as a member of the public did not know about it and so I contacted Duncan Slade for further commentary.

Money rules among the Boothbay Peninsula leadership class. The Town has the option, pursuant to State law of writing specific ordinances to govern the development of the Cross River shoreline, a tributary to the Sheepscot River, but that will only happen if there is environmental protection will at the local leadership level since the current ordinances are a green light to build on any environmentally protected property on Cross River of similar characteristics. The question is how many Cross River locations are similar.

We are leading into our election season. Desiree Scorcia has decided not to run and so we have two candidates competing as a new selectman. Usually, the information we get about candidates, who are announced very shortly before elections, is a paragraph in the Boothbay Register. The chances of Cross River ordinances being raised as an election talking point are slim.

If the precedent is to allow building on the environmental protection zone if the other choices are wetlands, then the question becomes how many Cross River locations match the same characteristics. Again - Is this a green light for developing designated environmentally protected areas on Cross River?

By the letter of the law, the Peninsula has the option of clearly defining the future development of the Cross River Shoreline by writing ordinances specifically for the shoreline. The issue was stated as ordinances that say that one can build in an environmentally protected zone which lies 250 feet from the shoreline if there is no other place to build and the board said “You can’t build in a wetland so its a go for the applicants to build on the environmentally protected area” and that is what was approved once again.

It was never said why you cannot build on a wetland. Is it merely because it is not desirable to do so, or is it true that you cannot build on a wetland?

How are the Wetlands and Waterbodies Protection Rules applied to specific projects?

The standards require that alterations to protected natural resources be avoided where possible, and a written alternatives analysis will be required of an applicant. If it can be demonstrated that no practicable alternative exists, then the applicant must show that the amount of the resource affected has been minimized to the greatest extent practicable.

All projects in or adjacent to (within 75 feet of) wetlands of special significance and rivers, streams, and brooks require a permit. Alterations in freshwater wetlands may need a permit, depending on the size and location of the project Issue - Maine Department of Environmental Protection

More importantly, why are the ordinances written this way? To be clear, I am not asking this question in advocacy of building on wetlands, I am asking if the statement “You cannot build on a wetland” is true as it applies to the letter of the law. Since the standards for both the environmentally protected areas and the wetlands are the same standards - that one cannot build on either unless there is no other alternative. then technically speaking, the statement that you cannot build in a wetland is not true and if it were true, it would also be true for the environmentally protected area. It is the equivalency of saying that if the entire property is a designated environmentally protected zone, then there is no other place to build on the property except in an environmentally protected zone- so that’s a yes for building on a property if it is all an environmentally protected zone.

The planning board gave no explanation for the claim that you can’t build on a wetland and so it remains a mere assertion, which goes to another vaguely explained point raised by the DEP. Apparently, the Boothbay Planning Board made assertions in their approval of the building permit not explained to the satisfaction of the Department of Environmental Protection, but this was not articulated in a way that the public could know what was under discussion.

A special request to help a very good person dealing with very tragic circumstances:

I have a rare request for any help you can contribute to helping a friend who has recently experienced a double dose of tragic and expensive events.

Carolyn Sylvius is a very good person whom I know through the Green Party. Recently her youngest son Adam suddenly died and while her daughter Vicki was helping with funeral arrangements she suffered a cardiac arrest and was put on life support. The decision has been made to remove the life support and so the daughter is likely to die as well leaving a large medical expense. These two events happened in the course of a week. I cannot imagine what Carolyn must be feeling.

This is the fundraiser started to help with Adam Silvius funeral costs and is now also for the daughter, Vicki. Donations and shares are needed. Carolyn has two other children.