By Wayne E. Rivet

Staff Writer

Will the Planning Board’s approval of Hotel Bridgton stand?

Or, will an appeal reverse the decision?

The answer comes this Wednesday, Nov. 6 at 5 p.m.

The Bridgton Board of Appeals last Thursday failed to cast formal votes regarding six “points of errors” filed by Attorney David Lourie, representing Susan Hatch, Sigvard Von Sicard and “Save Kennard Street.”

However, straw poll votes taken on some of topics — including Point of Error 1, the approval of the hotel structure that is not compatible in scale with the surrounding neighborhood was arbitrary and capricious” — seemed to point that the Appeals Board questioned the Planning Board’s “findings of facts” and “conclusions of law.”

After several hours of attorney presentations and debate amongst the Appeals Board, member Mark Harmon was prepared to settle the matter.

However, BOA Attorney James Katsiaficas suggested that he prepare a written summary of points made during the hearing, turn the information over to the board for review and possibly further contemplation, and then set another meeting date to officially vote on the appealed points.

The board voted 4–1 to call for a second meeting. Harmon cast the dissenting vote.

Katsiaficas opened the meeting by setting ground rules for the proceedings, which included 20 minutes set aside for attorneys representing each group to make their cases. A 15-minute rebuttal followed.

Lourie targeted a couple of key points — whether the project is compatible with neighboring Kennard Street residences, questioning the Planning Board’s decision to allow earth moving and filling in the Stream Protection zone to install a drain pipe, and planners erred in “construing storm drains and electrical lines to be essential services.”

He was critical of developer Justin McIver and his team for altering the Hotel Bridgton plan numerous times, which he ultimately felt put the Planning Board “under the gun” to make decisions that his group feels were in error based on the town’s ordinances.

Lourie emphasized that when two standards seem to conflict, planners were to follow the more restrictive guideline.

McIver’s attorney, Mark Bauer, disagreed with Lourie regarding the compatibility element, as well as whether planners were hurried in their decision-making.

Planners based compatibility on “vicinity,” pointing to its proximity to Main Street, which has structures similar in size to the proposal 68-room hotel.

He added that the project was subject to several very lengthy meetings and hearings, extending over an 18-month review process, giving planners ample opportunity to carefully weigh how the proposal matched up with local standards.

Answering Lourie’s criticism of numerous changes with the plan, Bauer noted that the developer made alterations to address concerns that were voiced by the public and planners.

At 6:11 p.m., discussion was turned over to the Appeals Board members.

While BOA member Kevin Raday looked to define “vicinity” as “what is around you” not just in front of you in regards to the compatibility issue, member Sharon Abbott felt the hotel would impact the nearby neighborhood and not fit size-wise.

A straw poll supported the appellants 3–2 — Abbott, Harmon and board chairman John Schuettinger supporting the suggestion that planners erred, while Raday and Bruce Hancock sided with planners.

Debate and questions were raised regarding permitted activity in the Stream Protection Zone. The board considered “remanding” some appeal points back to planners for reconsideration. They could move in that direction when the board officially acts on each point of error on Nov. 6.