Golden Anchor Appeal Denied
The Bar Harbor Story is generously sponsored by First National Bank.
BAR HARBOR—The Bar Harbor Appeals Board unanimously denied the Golden Anchor L.C.’s appeal of its notice of violations issued by the the town’s code enforcement office
The decision came during the second part of a meeting that began December 10 and lasted approximately six hours.
The Golden Anchor appeal was denied on grounds that the appellant didn’t hold or possess a cruise ship disembarkation permit for exiting passengers pursuant to the town’s land use ordinance 125-77H and Chapter 52-6 of the municipal code. The Golden Anchor isn’t entitled to disembark passengers without the permit but did so on July 25, 2024. It also found that the code enforcement officer acted appropriately in issuing a notice of violation and stated the corrective action necessary, which would be to attain the appropriate permit, which the appellant has not done.
The board excluded from consideration any other violations that may or may not have occurred. It was only addressing the July 25 violation.
That notice of violation (NOV) concerns the pier’s lack of a daily town permit to disembark cruise ship passengers at 55 West Street, which is where it has been historically accepting cruise ship passengers prior to the town’s rule changes limiting those passengers according to daily caps and requiring a permit rather than a license to do so. The rules also do not allow more than 1,000 to disembark without fees.
In mid November, the Bar Harbor Town Council agreed to seek enforcement in the courts against 55 West Street, Golden Anchor, L.C., which is where cruise ships tender passengers visiting Mount Desert Island.
Under the new disembarkation rules voted in by citizens in 2022 and upheld by a narrow margin this November, inspiring a recount that upheld the vote November 23, the town says that the business is required to apply for a permit to allow disembarkation of cruise ship passengers. The rules state that 1,000 cruise ship passengers can disembark each day before fees occur. The business has argued that it had a pre-existing use.
The board held that there was no evidence that a permit had been issued to the Golden Anchor and thus it was acting without a permit. The board held that the Golden Anchor did need a permit per the town’s 125-77H. The appellant has not shown that it is entitled to use the pier to disembark cruise ship passengers in unlimited numbers in perpetuity, Bar Harbor Appeals Board member Claire Fox said. They also agreed that there was a written notice of violation sent to the company. The board found that Golden Anchor was not subject to relief from the code enforcement officer’s actions.
The notice of violation issued by the town is from August 5, 2024. The application for administrative appeal was filed Wednesday, September 4, 2024. That 18-day delay was mentioned by Golden Anchor lawyers P. Andrew Hamilton and Timothy Woodcock of Eaton Peabody.
Public comment comprised the first hour of the meeting today. Three letters were read into the record from Ed Damm, Bo Jennings, and Charles Sidman, the lead petitioner for the cruise ship changes via citizens’ initiative. Public comment was allowed by people in the room and on Zoom. After the reading of his email, Sidman was not allowed to speak again because he’d previously spoken at the December 10 meeting through his attorney Robert Papazian. Papazian was not allowed to speak again as a member of the public because he was not a Bar Harbor resident.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Acting Chair Michael Siklosi allowed comments by multiple attendees. Kevin DesVeaux of the West Street Café in Bar Harbor said that he worked for the Golden Anchor from 1990 to 1999, and during that time they had been improving the pier.
“It’s been consistently in use,” during that time, which was before Ocean Properties and the Walsh Family owned it. It also accepted some cruise ships to alleviate the load on the town’s property, he said.
Former councilor Paul Paradis said he had real concerns about the appeal and the implications for limiting a business that has been conducting a business on a site for years. What’s next, he wondered. Hotel rooms? Bike shops? Art galleries? Would the town limit the number of folks who could come into his family’s hardware store because of congestion, he asked.
“These are crazy time for business owners in Bar Harbor,” he said.
Paradis concerns were echoed by Tom Testa who spoke to applying Chapter 52 rules to a long-standing property owner with a former ability to use the property in the way that now requires a permit. He also worried about implications.
“Which ones of us will be next?”
Nina St.Germain asked for fact-based, forward-thinking decisions on property rites and worried about owners being penalized for continuing pre-existing uses. Shawn Porter agreed.
Teresa Wagner, a planning board member, expressed her dismay that two board members had to recuse themselves. Both Chair Anna Durand and Vice Chair Cara Ryan recused themselves during the first portion of the meeting December 10 because of the potential of perceived bias. Because of those recusals, the board had three remaining members to conduct business. Associate member Siklosi was made chair.
Wagner said that what really was the issue before the Appeals Board was if the Golden Anchor failed to comply with existing town ordinances.
Sharon Knopp agreed, saying that the board members should stay focused on their task and the board should look to the questions before it and not the passions and background involved in the issues.
“There’s a lot of passionate feeling in the town about these issues and ordinances,” Knopp said.
SCOPE OF THE APPEAL BOARD’S ROLE
Many of the members of the public raised issues beyond the scope of what the board can do, Siklosi said after public comment. Fox agreed.
Appeals Board Secretary Robert Webber said that Hamilton had some good points, but that most of those are going to be dealt with in court and were beyond what the appeals board can deal with. What the board could deal with, he said, was if the Golden Anchor had a permit to disembark passengers on July 25.
During deliberations, Hamilton worried that the board wasn’t making findings of facts prior to making ultimate findings.
At the end of the hearing, Siklosi applauded the attorneys involved for keeping it civil. The case, he said, is likely to be appealed to Superior Court, and if so, it could be remanded back to the town’s appeal board. He also strongly urged that the three remaining members do not discuss the case.
“No op-eds in the paper, no posters, no hand-outs,” Siklosi said. “We basically keep our mouths shut until the case is truly done.”
It’s not over until it is over, he said quoting Yogi Berra, and he said it was likely not over.
Pileggi agreed and also reminded the three-person board not to talk to the recused members of the board about it either.
LINKS TO LEARN MORE
To read the appeals board packet
The appeals board page itself.
Application Materials:
- Appeal application and supporting materials (submitted on 09/05/2024)
- Letter regarding late submission from appellant (submitted on 11/25/2024)
- Letter responding to late submission from Town of Bar Harbor Attorney (Submitted on 11/26/2024)
- Letter from an Interested Party responding to the late submission (Submitted on 11/26/2024)
- Supplemental submission from Town of Bar Harbor Attorney (Submitted 12/03/2024)
- Supplemental submission from an Interested Party (Submitted 12/03/2024)
- Letter submitted by the appellant (submitted 12/9/2024)
Hello!
This is Carrie and Shaun, again. When we started the Bar Harbor Story, one of our major tenets was that we provide high quality, unbiased news for everyone, for free. Why would we want to do this? Because we believe that everyone, regardless of financial means, deserves to be as informed as they choose to be and not have to pay for that privilege.
Not only does the Bar Harbor Story, provide local news in a way that keeps you informed, but it, and us, also embraces and promotes community and the good that is within it.
We are working very hard to get the news out there—for free—for everyone. Most media isn’t local. Most media has paywalls and is inundated with advertisements. We don’t. We aren’t.
Richard Stengel writing in The Atlantic said, "Paywalls create a two-tiered system: credible, fact-based information for people who are willing to pay for it, and murkier, less-reliable information for everyone else. Simply put, paywalls get in the way of informing the public, which is the mission of journalism.”
As a news source that is owned and staffed by locals, we make every attempt to gather all of the facts for our readers, information that might not be part of the main story and/or information that may not be known even to our towns’ officials, but is still just as important, if not more important, to the story.
As we continue our journey towards expansion of coverage area and what topics we cover, we are once again asking for your help. We are not asking for anything money related this time, although we always greatly appreciate that, but we are asking you to help spread the word about the Bar Harbor Story.
If you feel that the Bar Harbor Story is doing the job of providing high quality, unbiased news, then we ask that you tell everyone that you know that has access to the internet, via any type of device, about us. You can tell them personally and they can do a web search for Bar Harbor Story or you can send them this web address barharborstory.substack.com and it will introduce them to the Bar Harbor Story and all they will have to do on their own is hit the “Subscribe” button at the bottom of any article.
Thank you for helping us allow people to know that they can have free access to the local news.
Carrie and Shaun
THANK YOU FOR SUPPORTING OUR COMMITMENT TO YOUR COMMUNITY
If you’d like to donate to help support us, you can, but no pressure! Just click here (about how you can give) or here (a direct link), which is the same as the button below.
If you’d like to sponsor the Bar Harbor Story, you can! Learn more here.
"Former councilor Paul Paradis said he had real concerns about the appeal and the implications for limiting a business that has been conducting a business on a site for years. What’s next, he wondered. Hotel rooms? Bike shops? Art galleries? Would the town limit the number of folks who could come into his family’s hardware store because of congestion, he asked."
This specious rhetoric is an example of reductio ad absurdum - a method of argumentation that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite of the claim would lead to an absurdity. In this case Paradis argues 'do not put even sensible regulations on businesses because even sensible limitations will lead to the absurd scenario of the town limiting 'the number of folks who could come into his family’s hardware store because of congestion.' Actually there are already fire codes which limit the number of people who can safely occupy a space such as his store, and formulae for calculating the specific number.
Republicans are ideologically opposed to government regulation, but this orthodoxy itself leads to absurd and dangerous scenarios - such as Republicans (having gutted civil rights protections for equality before the law, equal representation, separation of church and state, and working on free speech) now with control of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches hell bent on eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Education, the National Institutes of Health, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Consumer Protection Agency et al and, god help us, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, an independent agency of the United States government that insures deposits in banks and savings associations. They seem to forget that Abraham Lincoln who defended civil rights and Teddy Roosevelt who regulated industry and pioneered environmental protections were - Republicans.
Thank you, Carrie. Wonderful story to bring everyone up to date.
Paul Paradis in so right in his comments. Thank you, Paul,