The Phippsburg Board Of Appeals states that none of the wetlands off of Silver Lake are "adjacent" to Silver Lake, and therefore none are under the governance of the Phippsburg Shoreland Zoning Ordinance. I have been told how proud Phippsburg was to have a Shoreland Zoning Ordinance which was more stringent and protective than the State's standards. In this case the only shoreland zone was measured from the lake's open water, therefore making it less protective because it did not encompass the wetland areas at all past a certain arbitrary line. Under this decision, no wetlands are protected unless they fall within the area around the open water of the lake's zone. The Board says that in order for the wetlands to be "adjacent" they have connect directly to it, their definition of the meaning of "adjacent" and "abutting". I still don't know what they mean by this, but I do know that none of the new criteria used by them to determine the extent of the wetlands are actually in the ordinance. The ordinance does not qualify the nature of the wetlands as the board did. The ordinance does not impose the conditions stated by the Board on the wetlands, and the State guidelines from which the wording is taken, says that wetlands may be separated by a berm or other land and still be part of the associated adjacent wetlands. The CEO supposedly made the initial determination of the 250 foot zone to be from the open water of the lake but was, in reality, simply accepting the applicant's interpretation of the conditions present as submitted and did not make any attempt to define them for himself. He admits the difficulty which he has in making any such determinations on Page 32 below, of the transcript of the testimony of the hearing.

The original appeal to the Board of Appeals in this matter was made by Sue Nusbaum. We could not join her as original appellants because she was suing us over ownership of all roads (the ones next to us, away from her property) in the 1922 plan. We could not enter into a situation which might have created a conflict of interest with our law firm, by having them do work (as Nusbaum has repeatedly tried to get us to have them do) for both parties in this matter. Regardless, the substance of the Nusbaum appeal to Phippsburg was not persuasive enough when she presented it despite her reams of materials. As I have seen them do before and since, the Board seemed to have made up their minds to back the town's personnel no matter what arguments might be brought before them. Statements by Board members about trenches dug and an inadequate and incomplete knowledge of the conditions present in the permitted area seemed to have compelled the BOA to rewrite the criteria of the ordinances to fit the CEO's inability to delineate any high water line of the wetlands or lake (see below Page 32 of testimony of Board where he admits his difficulty in doing this).

The matter was appealed to Superior Court, State of Maine. Mrs. Nusbaum then decided to withdraw from that appeal. We substituted ourselves as parties in the matter, but Superior Court Judge Atwood decided that we did not have "standing" because we had not originally brought the appeal to the Phippsburg Board of Appeals. For the past three months we have wondered whether, in fact, the appeal would come before anyone for its SUBSTANCE.

Page #

Neighbor Rubin chimes in-Issue is allowing building in SWAMPS!

Rainey mentions DEP letter (at issue a letter from DEP saying those wetlands which were to be filled are not those which are "connected to Silver Lake" - so letter actually mentions wetlands nearby ARE in fact connected to lake- DEP opinion is actually opposite of CEO's interpretation)