By Wayne E. Rivet

Staff Writer

A Superior Court judge has ruled in favor of Justin McIver’s appeal to build Hotel Bridgton.

In a 12-page decision handed down on June 6, Maine Superior Court Justice Thomas R. McKeon affirmed the Bridgton Planning Board’s decision to approve McIver’s plan to build a boutique hotel at the former Saunders Mill site, situated on Bacon and Kennard Streets.

Justice McKeon vacated the Bridgton Appeals Board’s decision made in mid-November, which reversed the town’s planning board’s ruling. The Appeals Board voted 4-1 (Kevin Raday voting against).

The Appeals Board ruled on six items of contention, including whether the hotel structure is compatible in scale and size with the surrounding neighborhood. The board voted 3-2 reversing planners’ decision.

McIver (Saunders Mills LLC) then took his case to Superior Court.

The project traveled a 16-month path, which included several revisions, hours of testimony, and hearings. Information gathering ended on May 22, 2019 and planners finally gave approval by a 5-0 vote (with a lengthy list of conditions) in mid-June, 2019.

Appeal to Superior Court

In the court decision, individual abutters Susan Hatch and Sigvard and Judy Von Sicard were listed as opposing construction of the hotel and the developer’s (McIver) appeal.

There were four “issues on appeal”:

• Whether the Planning Board erred by concluding the proposed hotel project is of compatible scale and size compared with existing buildings in the vicinity.

Judge McKeon ruled that the Planning Board’s comparison of structures within 1,000 feet (vicinity) of the project to determine what is “compatible” or “harmonious” is “soundly in the discretion of the Planning Board.”

 • Whether the Planning Board erred by determining that a stormwater drainage pipe is not a “structure,” which would mean within the SPZ (Shoreland Protection Zone).

• Whether the Planning Board erred in finding that the storm water drainage elements and the electrical line usage were essential services within the SPZ;

• Whether the Planning Board erred when allowing “filling and earth movement” in the SPZ.

Justice McKeon ruled that the storm water pipe “is a structure.” It is “anything constructed or erected” in the ground.

In regards to whether the storm water drainage elements and electrical line usage are “essential services,” Justice McKeon ruled, “Surface water drainage systems manage water as it has always run, often to the nearest stream. It slows the rate of flow and improves water quality to protect the stream. The Planning Board was within its discretion to determine that improvements to stormwater discharge, including the pipe and regrading in the SPD to benefit the stream.”

He added, “The Planning Board made the necessary finding that there were no reasonable alternatives to the location of the electrical conduits and elements of the stormwater design in the SPD, which is in its discretion. Therefore, regardless of whether the elements included “structures,” the Planning Board’s decision to consider them ‘essential services’ and allow their use was not an error.”

In regards to earth moving, Justice McKeon wrote, “Since the intent of the ordinance is to allow construction of a stormwater system, the necessary regrading and earthmoving are permitted as well. Several of the permitted uses in addition to essential services, by their very nature, require earth movement.”

He continued, “In the alternative, the Planning Board also treated the grading work as soil and w ater conservation practices. That decision is within the Planning Board’s discretion to permit that work.”

EDITOR’S NOTE: This story will be updated.