By Wayne E. Rivet

Staff Writer

For over a year, a “seasoned” Planning Board asked pointed questions, reviewed a stack of data and considered a wide range of testimony before approving the Hotel Bridgton project.

So when veteran chairman John Schuettinger was unavailable due to a medical issue, a relatively rookie Board of Appeals decided to put the brakes on temporarily on their review of the Hotel Bridgton decision.

Following a huddle between attorneys, the decision was made last Thursday night to hear public comment only, and then postpone the administrative appeal until Thursday, Oct. 24, at 5 p.m. when only attorneys representing the Save Kennard Street group and the town will make presentations.

“My concern is you are looking at a new Appeals Board. I’m the only one here that’s seen appeal,” veteran Appeals Board member Sharon Abbott said. “John, the principal chair, has a number of years and is very knowledgeable. This is an important case and we want to do it right.”

All sides agreed that Schuettinger’s experience would prove beneficial, and felt he should be in the room when the attorneys begin their arguments.

Attorney James Katsiaficas of Perkins & Thompson law firm in Portland will serve as the neutral advisor overseeing the administrative appeal, since the town’s attorney, Agnieszka Dixon of Drummond & Woodsum will continue to represent the Bridgton Planning Board in these proceedings.

In a letter to the town, Katsiaficas noted, “The potential for prejudice caused by the appearance of the Town Attorney before a Board of Appeals in a role other than as advisor to the Board has been raised before as a potential due process violation, and was rejected by the Law Court where the Town Attorney was careful to state several times on the record that he was representing the CEO (code enforcement officer) and not advising the Board,” he wrote. “I suggest that if the Town Attorney will speak to the Board of Appeals as the representative of the Planning Board, then it would be prudent for her to state that although she is the Town Attorney, she is representing the Planning Board as a party, and is not representing or advising the Board of Appeals as its legal counsel at this hearing.”

Katsiaficas welcomed public comment, but pointed out that “we are not here to do this all over again” and the Appeals Board would not be accepting no new testimony, no new evidence and no new documentation. The Appeals Board’s focus will be whether there was an error of law in regards to the Planning Board’s decision to approve the 68-room hotel project. The Appeals Board can either affirm planners’ decision, reverse it or remand the project back to the Planning Board for additional findings.

Appeals Board vice chairman Mark Harmon set a five-minute limit for each speaker, and called for the meeting to close by 9 p.m., citing many people “have to work in the morning.”

The first speaker was Sigvard Von Sicard, one of the individuals named in the appeal, who inherited property that abuts the proposed hotel site on Highland Road some 30 years ago.

”It was an incredible experience in our lives (to inherit the property),” he said. “We prefer to be in Bridgton than anywhere else. We come from a city that nearly strangled itself when the industrial revolution took place. Development took away human personality of people. We discussed for many years since the mill closed what potentials the site had. What we’ve heard and read and seen, we are wondering very seriously if Bridgton is losing sight of vision of what it could be, is and should be.”

Sicard feels the hotel project would “affect us very seriously because of the nature of the plans for the property.”

Local resident and restaurateur Jimmy Burke had one point to make — the Planning Board spent numerous hours considering the project and did a “phenomenal job.” He felt if the decision was overturned, “it would be a slap in face of the Planning Board, and it would be a shame.”

Cathy DiPietro, an engineer registered in Maine and New Jersey, who assisted the Save Kennard Street group, addressed points concerning adding fill to the site and the placement of a storm drain in an area which is prohibited by town ordinance.

Resident Kevin Duffy voice appreciation of the board’s decision to push the review to October based on the project’s complexity.

“I do believe the Planning Board did an amazing job on this complicated issue,” he added.

Doug Oakley, who pointed out that he had been recused during Planning Board deliberation, was presenting as a “resident” and having “no official capacity” as a member of the Planning Board.

“I share the concerns of folks most directly impacted by this project on Kennard and Bacon Streets and many members of our community that believe this project, as proposed, would have a detrimental effect on its sensitive water shed and the character of our town,” he said. “I believe the points of appeal presented to you accurately reflect the unanswered problems or questions concerning this project and the conditional approval granted by the Planning Board.”

Oakley focused on two primary concerns — first, the question of compatible size and scale.

“The Planning Board’s own Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law states that the existing single-story mill buildings are not of compatible size and scale to the surroundings and are to be removed by the developer,” he said. “Yet, the Planning Board approved the proposed three-story hotel complex that is twice the size of the existing structures by volume and anywhere from 20 to nearly 40 times larger than the directly abutting neighborhood houses.”

Oakley said the approval of the standard by three of the five board members “was clearly an error.”

His second point addressed “features, structures or elements” being added within the Stream Protection District, “where those activities are clearly prohibited in the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance.”

The “features” include fill to recontour the elevation of the property, the addition of a storm drain pipe (previously located on the adjoining property, which was also referenced by DiPietro earlier), and the addition of trail lighting along Stevens Brook.

“All of these features would require earthmoving and/or fill within the 75-foot setback of the Stream Protection District and are prohibited in the Table of Land Uses,” he added.

Oakley noted that whenever ordinance provisions conflict, the rule is to side with the “more restrictive provision.” He feels the Planning Board applied the less restrictive provisions.

“Either of the two errors are enough to overturn decision of the Planning Board,” Oakley said.

Bridgton native Dan Macdonald complimented the BOA for their willingness to postpone work until Shuettinger is available.

“It speaks volumes,” he said. “There are many people who are opposed and many who are in favor of it. The project has caused people to argue with each other. This shouldn’t happen.”

Once built and operational, the hotel — Macdonald feels — will have eliminated an “eye sore” and will become a “tremendous asset.” He added that developer Justin McIver has proven himself locally based on other projects, and will produce a facility that the town can be proud of.

Save Kennard Street leader Susan Hatch re-emphasized the importance of protecting the town’s most valuable asset, it’s water.

“Let’s walk the walk and not just talk. Bridgton is defined by water… Water protection is number one, don’t forget it.”

Property owner and Save Kennard Street member Tom Smith felt the Planning Board erred when it allowed activity in the Stream Protection Zone, which is prohibited. He noted, “We’re not opposed to a hotel on this site, but opposed to one of this scale.”

Resident Barry D’Nofrio attended several Planning Board meetings on the hotel project and was very impressed with members’ diligence. He felt approval of the project was a step to improving Bridgton’s future.

The meeting closed after just 57 minutes — a far cry from planning meetings that stretched to three hours. Now, the wait until Oct. 24 when the attorneys take center stage.