Popham Development Issues

From SECRET meetings of the Board of Appeals which resulted in the granting of a variance to one of my neighbors (click here) basically without anyone knowing about it except the Board and the applicant, to the granting of permits for septic systems in flood zones (see discussion of this here), the town is granting all permits for construction in this area which was, at one time, a poster child for conservation efforts (see discussion of the mapping of natural resources in the area-soon). There seem to be no limits on development in an area which is almost entirely composed of at least one and sometimes numerous, overlapping, protected natural resources but which also has a limited and degrading water resources. The whole of Popham is a dynamic and fragile environment which is being squandered through new permitting with no consideration for the protection of those resources or their importance to the existing property owners. The State seems to hold itself to a higher standard than it does individual landowners in that it will not allow the same activities on state owned land that it will on private property. It will not allow itself to sacrifice the environment in Popham Beach State Park, one of the most visited in the State where a large number of people would be benefited, but it does allow development and destruction of the same protected natural resources over and over where the only beneficiary is the individual speculative landowner. Benefit to the individual who rents out their property or develops and, in many cases only wants the assurances of permitting and then, sells, are allowed even where these permits allow the destruction of other's people's property (see Sabino Ave. Road-soon and the permitting of septic's in pond zones-here)! The town similarly will not apply the same restrictions at Popham with which it protects the restof the citizens of the of the town from the affects of overly dense development.

So my questions are: Why should this be allowed? How can we affect this flawed process?

The Maine State Department of Environmental Protection has shown itself to be impotent, and has been rendered so by its own choice. We believed that the agency was empowered to protect not only the resources which are deemed public, protected natural resources, but that it would also, by its own standards for permitting in allowing development in these supposedly protected resource areas, not allow the destruction of these areas to negatively impact our or anybody else's property. We have been disappointed in both beliefs. The DEP will not interfere with the local government, even when there is clear and documented error in the town's assessments of protected resources under its jurisdiction (see the discussion on the Chester permit Board of Appeals decision here - currently the subject of an expensive lawsuit. This could have been avoided by action on the part of the DEP to insist that the town enforce its own State approved and mandated shore land zoning ordinances. The matter is currently before the law court of the State).

At the local level, it has cost my family a large amount of money to get a secret meeting of the Phippsburg Board of Appeals and its resulting variance to the Phippsburg zoning ordinances overturned (see the court's decision on that here). Now, after having to go through a useless waste of energy and resources, the board actually does comply with the basic democratic notions contained in the town's ordinances which state that when a possible granting of an exception to the town's laws is going to affect the abutting property owner, the abutting property owners must have an opportunity to be heard on the matter and so be notified of the pending action. This would seem simple enough, but it was not the way the town was doing its business, and it had to be told by the courts to follow its own rules. As one gentlemen said at one of the town meetings on the Comprehensive Plan, 'You used to be able to go to the board (of Appeals) and get whatever you wanted. You can't do that anymore!." And why should you have been able to do that in the first place? The Board's refusal to correct its error showed an arrogance which I would think would be embarrassing to them and the rest of the town government.

A closed permitting process (see comments on PBR and Tier 1 DEP permitting), which includes the above outrageous example of a flawed variance process, has been happening at all levels of the development process, state and local. The town is no longer applying any zoning regulations to development at Popham. They are preferring instead to treat an antique plan from 1922 which has governed land sales, but has none of the usual required elements of a legitimate subdivision plan-requirements for roads, utilities, waste, etc.- to be considered a legitimate fully approved plan, a treatment which allows unbridled and unregulated development, the antithesis of reasoned subdivision regulation. All projects are being approved whether the relaxation of the town's minimum lot size requirements mean there will be no room for adherence to any setbacks or other town approved regulations designed to insure a reasonable quality of life for the existing property owners. Approval of contemporary subdivisions under consideration these days has a very long list of regulations attached, but this old one has no regulation attached simply because it predated such regulations. Even though it was never realized, the town is now requiring no planning board oversight where it would normally be required. The sole governing entity is then the town CEO who is indiscriminately allowing all development plans which come across his desk (see the discussion of the permitting of septics in pond zones-here). The town has made it very difficult to initiate any real conversation about projects which will have definite impacts on the quality of existing uses in the community, preferring instead to cut the citizen out of the process, particularly the seasonal residents (see comments by the BOA on their knowledge of the local environs, look at page 15-here).

The town prefers to deal solely with the developer only, who then becomes a partner with the town by providing needed tax revenues. his would be fine IF the town was considering the existing property owners in its permitting and if it was requiring of the development at Popham the same conditions which it requires for the rest of the town. But it is not! Most of the development is on spec, as money making propositions where the developer hopes to sell the property and make their money. Unfortunately, this leaves the affects of the action on the existing property owners and any responsibilities of the old owners behind. The town reaps tax revenue while the developer walks with his profit. The existing property owner gets nothing except a degradation of their local environment with none of the protections offered to the rest of the town's population through existing ordinances. With no participation in the process and by having no adherence to existing regulations, State or local, there is no protection being offered to the existing landowners. This relegates the existing property owners at Popham to a status of second class citizens with no protection under the law and I believe it is discriminatory in its essence.

These actions of the town in issuing any and all permits which come along, with no planning board or citizen participation is allowing drastic alterations to our landscape. This is being done with the co-operation of the Maine department of Environmental Protection, and this relationship of DEP and the Town of Phippsburg has evolved into a very disturbing mutual and circular deferral of responsibility. The overall result is allowing a host of questionable precedents to be set in our community, with one leading to another as precedents which normally would not see the light of day. Consequently we must understand the impact of this relationship on our lives and environment. Even when the State has participated in a local permitting situation it has done so with so little effect as to be totally useless. Where is supposed to guide the local authority, their lax attitude about violations of their own permits and their lack of State enforcement local compliance with State mandated shore land zoning is baffling!

I think it is important for the people of Popham and the town at large to know that there is a place where they can find some of the documents that are relevant to what they may be hearing about but can't get without exhaustive research and time spent digging up a huge pile of documents. It is taking me time to scan and arrange, but I hope this will be complete enough to give everyone a sense of the impacts which a series of smaller action is having on the larger picture at Popham. I know of five projects which are resulting in building in areas which are either swamps, or are totally outside of the normal zoning (and therefore setback) requirements for the rest of the town. This is going to result in densities, crowding, the creation of nonconforming structures and lots with a resulting degradation in the quality of existing housing which would not be tolerated by anyone else in the town in their neighborhoods.

The town has passed ordinances to control this type of development, but is applying a different standard to Popham Beach than in the rest of the town. This should not be tolerated.

"How did this happen?!?"

Below-Chester site inundated with rise of water level after snow melt in areas surrounding Silver Lake on April 2, 2005

The roles of the town of Phippsburg and State DEP are extremely important to what goes on, and I believe there are some major problems with the process which is allowing some projects in areas (swamps) where they are clearly not appropriate. Too many times I have been asked how could these projects possibly have happened by people looking at foundations surrounded by water and houses up to the first floor in water, surrounded by wetlands. For now, this web site will try to answer the question, "How did this happen?" though I am not sure I have a plausible answer. Only when we know what has transpired can we make reasonable and informed decisions about the effectiveness and viability of our local and state governments.

As I have mentioned, the manner of permitting for projects at Popham has been alarmingly closed to those who will be impacted by it, and this needs to be addressed at the town government level as well as at the State level, before we all find ourselves with new houses and roads within a few feet of our windows, as has happened already to myself and some of our neighbors. I have had long discussions with State DEP officials, our State Representatives and other concerned citizens and wish to share the sometimes disturbing substance of those discussions as they may affect Popham Beach. I will make available the permits (check the menu on the left hand side of the home page) which have been issued for all to examine. To gather them otherwise would require a great deal of time and effort. Since I have copies of them, I can easily make them all accessible to the community.

We need a thorough understanding of the issues involved for us all to be informed of the nuances which exist in the permitting and legal environments in our community and State. Recent mapping efforts initiated after a meeting with the commissioner of the DEP, are underway and will affect, hopefully, future permitting in the area. I hope this web site will spark a wider participation from our community in affecting the issues facing us all and that it may evolve into a continuing forum for any issues related to our community in the future. I welcome your comments! e-mail me at snorris1@maine.rr.com