By Zack Anchors

Staff Writer





Efforts are continuing on more than one front to preserve an 8.2-acre
property on Sawyer Street that was determined by a 2002 city study to
be one of the most important open spaces in South Portland.



While the South Portland Land Trust (SPLT) and the Meeting House Hill
Association (MHHA) are appealing a building permit that would allow a
two-story home to be built at 689 Sawyer Street, the city is working
with the developer involved—Paul Vose—to explore ways the city could
preserve the property.



“The city has been talking with Paul to see if there are any
alternatives that could be put on the table,” said Assistant City
Manager Jim Gailey. “Our goal is trying to keep the marsh as is, and
acquiring it through this process.”



Gailey said discussions with Vose so far are “preliminary” and not connected to the appeal of his building permit.



The permit, which was issued on Sep. 1 by Pat Doucette, the Code
Enforcement Officer, has been brought to the South Portland Board of
Appeals, which will consider the matter at a public hearing during its
Nov. 15 meeting.



MHHA and SPTL are basing their appeal on what they claim are several
problems with the process of issuing the building permit to Vose.



Because the property in question abuts Trout Brook and is on the margin
of a flood zone, before a permit can be issued it must be shown that
the potential site of a building meets the requirements of city
ordinance for restricted areas such as flood zone or stream protection
overlay districts. MHHA and SPTL members are arguing that the Code
Enforcement Office failed to thoroughly address and enforce the
requirements of city ordinance with regards to the siting of Vose’s
proposed house.



“We want them to be very careful about issuing a building permit before
making sure all the ordinances are met,” said Michele Benington of
MHHA. Benington said her group would not have pursued an appeal or paid
for attorney Rob Crawford to help them, if they were not confident they
had a strong case.



The item was originally on the agenda of the board’s Oct. 25 meeting,
but was tabled after much of the meeting was taken up by a discussion
of the legitimacy of the appeal. Dozens of supporters of the appeal
showed up at the meeting, many whom received public notices the city is
required to send out to neighbors. But before the public hearing could
begin, Mary Kahl, South Portland’s Corporation Counsel, who was in this
instance serving as Doucette’s legal representative, argued that the
appeal was not filed before a thirty-day deadline passed and was not
submitted on an official appeal form.



“What the Code Enforcement Officer had within thirty days was not an
appeal and what you have before you does not constitute an appeal,” she
said.



Kahl’s attempt to have the appeal dismissed led to a detailed and lengthy discussion between herself, the board and Crawford.



At the core of the matter was the question, raised by Kahl, “what constitutes an appeal?”



Although Doucette had received a letter regarding a possible appeal a
few days before the thirty-day deadline, she did not receive an
official appeal request, with the required fee, until Oct. 2– one day
too late.



Kahl stressed that it was “very, very important” for the city to have consistency in how it enforces such rules about appeals.



The board also gave Vose an opportunity to address the legitimacy of
the appeal. Although he said he thinks “fairness and equal application
of the ordinance is important,” Vose told the board they were more
qualified than himself to interpret its requirements.



“Whatever the decision is that is made,” Vose said, “that’s the decision and we’ll live with it.”



Upon considering whether the appeal was legitimate, the board discussed
several issues including whether the appeal needed to be written on the
official form, whether the fee was required within the thirty-day
period, and whether the deadline should be extended if it landed on a
weekend day and holiday.



Crawford, whose services are being paid for with money from fundraisers
MHHA and SPLT have held, said despite problems in how the appeal was
filed, the board should accept it. “If you’re going to err on one side
or the other, you should err on the side of being inclusive,” he said.



Ultimately the board split 5-2 in favor of accepting the appeal, with
board members Daniel Fortin and Mark Farrington opposed. But at that
point in the meeting the board determined it was too late into the
night to actually consider the appeal.



It was decided to postpone the item until the Nov. 15 meeting.