CAMDEN — At the conclusion of Tuesday night's public hearing regarding proposed amendments to the Harbor and Waterways Ordinance, during which the Camden Select Board took public comment, and board members discussed whether or not to let the citizens decide whether to prohibit future piers in the outer harbor, a majority of the Select Board made the decision for the community.

By a vote of 3 to 1 to 0, with Select Board members Jim Heard opposed and Leonard Lookner abstained, John French, Don White and Martin Cates approved reverting the outer harbor pier amendment, and leaving it the way it was, in the package of Harbor and Waterways Ordinance amendments that citizens will be asked to comment on at a public hearing Sept. 1. The board also voted 3 to 2, with Lookner and Heard opposed, and approved adding back in the ability to apply for consolidated piers. Both amendments, among others, were unanimously recommended by the Harbor Committee and Planning Board and both groups at a meeting Aug. 4 urged the Select Board to put all of the amendments before the citizens for a town-wide vote.

The Select Board met Aug. 18, when a public hearing was on the agenda, to discuss whether a package of Harbor and Waterways Ordinance proposed amendments should be moved to a public hearing, and eventually to the November ballot. At the start of the meeting town attorney Kristin Collins told board members that they had before them recommendations from the Harbor Committee and Planning Board to move the amendments forward for a vote, and that they had the options Tuesday of accepting those recommendations, changing them or taking them under advisement and making a decision at another meeting.

"My recommendation, since you have so much before you, is to take it under advisement and make a decision at the next meeting," said Collins.

"If the goal is to get them on the ballot in November, you don't have a month to consider them, but rather a shorter amount of time," she said.

At the opening of public comment, Harbor Committee Chairman Gene McKeever stepped forward and outlined the work that the committee had done over the past 1-1/2 years to review the Harbor and Waterways Ordinance. The Harbor Committee was tasked to undertake the full review by the Comprehensive Plan and the Select Board, with the goal of making sure the Ordinance was in line with the June 2015 Comprehensive Plan. The Harbor Committee had tried to get the Select Board to move the amendments to a public hearing last summer, but were put off and the hearing never happened.

Moving on, McKeever said that the Comprehensive Plan points to the importance of the internationally recognized beauty of Camden Harbor, which is one of the things the Harbor Committee kept in mind while reviewing the Harbor and Waterways Ordinance.

"We as members of the Harbor Committee take the Comprehensive Plan and the Harbor Ordinance very seriously. The one thing I want to make absolutely certain that you understand is that, what our intention in the Ordinance is, is to complete the prohibition of piers from just not Shermans Point to Marine Avenue, but all the way over to Dillingham Point. That's in a nutshell what we are looking to do," McKeever told the audience Tuesday night.

The major change being proposed was to prohibit any further private piers in the outer harbor, with the remainder of the amendments "house cleaning," he said.

One of the proposed ordinance amendments was to also do away with allowing consolidated piers in the Outer Harbor and Coastal Harbor zones, and another was to amend the provisions regarding municipal piers in the Outer Harbor.

"The citizens of Camden want Camden Harbor to be beautiful, per the Comprehensive Plan. The votes were unanimous [on the Harbor Committee] and we brought it to the Planning Board and they voted unanimously to back us up," said McKeever.

The introduction of Chapter 12-Camden Harbor states, "Since the first European settlers sailed into Camden Harbor in 1769, it has been the focal point of the Town's economy and its identity. Over the years, no area in Camden has been of more general concern to its citizens than the harbor and shore front adjacent to it along Penobscot Bay. The community has worked diligently to preserve the maritime character of the harbor and to assure public access to the waterfront for both residents and for visitors."

The Comprehensive Plan states that the Harbor and Waterways Ordinance, which was adopted in March 1990, "Encourages the use of consolidated piers, rather than the proliferation of individual piers in the harbor, and protects [the] Sherman Cove area from development of any structure requiring a permit under the Harbor and Waterways Ordinance," among other things.

McKeever and others, including Camden Code Enforcement Officer Steve Wilson, said that the amendment to eliminate future consolidated piers came about because of the legal wrangling that can occur when two property owners share one pier. Issues have been shown to crop up when either one property sells and a new owner is introduced, when the pier is located on one owner's property and allows access across the others' property, or when one property owner uses it in a way that was not originally intended.

McKeever pointed out sections of the Comprehensive Plan that the Harbor Committee used as directives, including statements that Camden should remain aware that the state may reestablish a ferry pier where one once existed at the end of Steamboat Landing, that the renown beauty of Camden Harbor "should be managed for the good of all" and that previous controversy about the building of a marine railway in Shermans Cove "seemed to indicate" that the specific language of the Harbor and Waterways Ordinance did not thoroughly reflect the town's desire to protect the cove and that the Harbor Committee should "completely review the Harbor Ordinance for other unintended ways that the public use of the harbor might be disturbed."

In the section of the Comprehensive Plan that sets out goals and strategies, the plan says it recognizes the importance of the marine industry to Camden, including commercial marine establishments and those who depend on the water for livelihood.

"Land use regulations and harbor management must continue to make explicit provision for them in the harbor and on the waterfont."

To achieve this, the plan's strategy states: "Explore ways to counter market forces that seek to develop residential uses along shoreline properties while encouraging commercial marine enterprises."

Al Johnson, a Bay Road resident, said he is not against more piers in the outer harbor and did not want the Select Board to restrict people's rights with more rules.

"I would like to have a pier and a float in the outer harbor and I have been before the Harbor Committee twice, and twice they have said no. The beauty of that is that one size does not fit all. And here we are saying that one size fits all," said Johnson. "I appreciate the opportunity to have expert judgment in the equation. I think you should have judgment, and I see no reason to handcuff [the Harbor Committee] and say one size fits all. So I am against eliminating all piers in the outer harbor. It's so vitally important to have the judgement we have here now. I don't see any pier out there that detracts from the beauty of Camden Harbor."

Ben Ellison, a member of the Harbor Committee, said the present private pier ordinance is extremely regulated and limited, and said to Johnson that it was the ordinance that said he couldn't have the pier, not the committee.

"It wasn't just about looks, but uses," said Ellison. "And it's also a very limited number of properties that are going to be affected."

Ellison said the bigger issue was whether the citizens were going to get a chance to vote.

"I implore you to implore the Select Board [to put it on the ballot]," said Ellison.

Tim Stillmaker, a Dillingham Point resident who said he moved to Camden from Missouri, said that the outer harbor is uniquely beautiful, and that everything should be done to preserve it.

"I believe we are able to draw from the highest ends to support the exquisite hotels and restaurants because of this exquisite harbor," said Stillmaker.

Grove Street resident Stephen Gold, who said he was an active user of the harbor and a Harbor Committee member, said that during the 1-1/2 years of discussion about the Harbor Ordinance he had two comments to make.

First, he said property owners' comments that restricting property uses, or allowing your neighbor to do something would lead to lower property values was a moot point.

"All that we do in the community is somewhat of a limit on property rights. Our process has been refining rules and what we want from our community," said Gold.

Second, he said he wanted to respond to a comment made by a Select Board member two weeks ago, when they said, "I don't want to hear you just come up and say that they [piers] are not pretty."

"In truth, we make a lot of decisions based on what's pretty and what's not. We have limitations on signs, lighting, aesthetic compatibility. So I urge the public to support this amendment change," said Gold.

Harbor Committee member Sandy Welty reiterated what he said on Aug. 4 to the Select Board, "It makes sense for you to let the folks who live here decide the issue."

Waterfront owner and Camden resident Stuart Smith said that he was against a full ban on piers in the harbor

Smith said the town had enough restrictions and reviews for applicants to go through, and with only two possible lots on the outer harbor that might qualify to construct a pier, the prohibition was unnecessary.

"On the surface, it sounds great to protect the whole harbor," said Smith. "But not one of the members of the Harbor Committee is a property owner on the harbor, and I think that group should be represented."

Smith also said that the current ordinance allows a major pier, 320 feet, to be constructed next to Wayferer/Lyman-Morse, and the amended ordinance left that in place for future business development and commercial activity.

"We have heard over the years that we want keep a working harbor, and if we want to do that, the Harbor Committee should focus on what they can do to support Wayfarer Marine before they start putting a ban on all piers," said Smith.

McKeever said that Drew Lyman is an active member of the Harbor Committee, and he also said that the proposed ban applied to residential private piers, not business piers.

But later in the meeting the town attorney clarified that as written, the proposed amendment would in fact ban all piers.

Thirty-five minutes after the hearing began, the public portion was closed and discussion was opened to the Select Board.

Select Board member Martin Cates did not ask any questions, but rather made a handful of statements. First, he said that the process should have discussing the proposed amendment with outer harbor property owners, "not just one or two, but more."

He called it a contradiction that a large municipal pier is an OK use for the town, while private piers were being viewed as not being functional or "pretty."

"I agree with Stuart [Smith] and [Tim] Johnson, we don't need to be putting handcuffs on and slap more regulations on," said Cates. "The changes throughout the zoning are very sweeping and I question how the public will receive those and if they will get swept under the rug."

Select Board member Jim Heard said that boils down to individual rights versus the rights of all citizens.

"Does one trump the other? Does the individual who, by good fortune gets to amass property...get to do something that becomes a blight to all? There is a common good that overtakes individual rights," said Heard.

Select Board member Don White repeated what he said Aug. 4, that he finds it "ironic" that the private property owner can't build a pier but that the town can.

"I realize the Steamboat Landing pier has been in the ordinance forever. But that was a working waterfront way back when, and now it's condos there. But I can't wrap my arms around the idea that private residents can't build a pier if they meet regulations but the municipality can," said White. "For years, people have loved our harbor, and I can't put my arms around banning things."

In addition to seeing the need to work to help waterfront businesses, Select Board chairman John French said, "For one property though, I can't see pulling the plug."

Select Board member Leonard Lookner urged the others to support the work and recommendations of the Harbor Committee and Planning Board, and put the issue before the voters.

"We are not being asked whether we agree with this or not. We are being asked to put this to the voters or not," said Lookner. "The fact is we have already banned piers in Shermans Cove, and there has been no liability to date. The fact that this has been brought forward by two committees and voted unanimously to put it before the voters, I think as a Select Board we should be giving the Harbor Committee and Planning Board the support to back their recommendation to put this before the voters."

White then made a first motion to approve the Article that removed the provision for allowing consolidated piers in the outer harbor, but with the change to put back in the terminology allowing consolidated piers.

During the discussion of the motion, Lookner said, "I think it's really reasonable to eliminate consolidated piers in the outer harbor. The least we can do is to cut the 150-foot limit back to 100-feet. Private piers can potentially destroy a harbor."

Heard said he agreed with Lookner, who asked that they come to a compromise, "be grown men and get at least something done" and leave the definitions the way there are. He also asked that they request the CEO come back to the board with how many potential consolidated piers were possible.

White moved the motion, which required an immediate vote. The motion passed 3 to 2, with Lookner and Heard opposed.

A second motion was made to support leaving piers in the Harbor and Waterways Ordinance, allowing them in the outer harbor and essentially leaving that portion of the ordinance unchanged.

Lookner said he found it difficult to vote, because he thought the Select Board should show support for the hours and weeks of work by the Harbor Committee and Planning Boards and their joint unanimous recommendation of the proposed amendments.

"It's become so convoluted, it's hard to follow," said Lookner.

When pressed to vote, Lookner abstained. The motion then passed 3 to 1, with Heard opposed.

The board then asked the town attorney to redraft the proposed ordinance amendments in preparation for a public hearing Sept. 1.

Related story:

• Public hearing on proposed Camden Harbor pier prohibitions Aug. 18

Related links:

• Camden Comprehensive Plan - June 2015

• Camden Harbor and Waterways Ordinance - Nov. 5, 2013