skip to main content
South Portland Board of Appeals - July 7 2025
The meeting was called to order, and the public was welcomed to attend. The board operates from a prepared agenda and public participation is encouraged unless an executive session is called.
The meeting commenced with a welcome and call to order. The public was informed that they have the right to hear everything being said and view all exhibits unless an executive session is initiated. Participants were encouraged to notify the board if they have any issues with hearing or seeing the proceedings.
Attendance was accepted, and the resignation of the previously elected secretary was noted. A new secretary will be elected. The board's composition and quorum requirements were discussed.
The meeting proceeded with the roll call and acceptance of attendance. It was noted that the previously elected secretary had resigned, and there would be an election for a new secretary. The board's composition as a seven-member body and the requirement for a majority vote were highlighted.
Public hearings were scheduled for applications submitted by Rebecca Brohu and Gordon Smith regarding administrative appeals related to tree removal activities. Each side was given an opportunity to present their case and answer questions.
The meeting included public hearings on two applications. The first application was submitted by Rebecca Brohu, Esquire, and the second by Gordon Smith, Esquire. Both applications involved administrative appeals concerning notices issued in relation to tree removal activities. The process for the hearings was outlined, including the opportunity for proponents and opponents to present their arguments and answer questions from the board. The process for rebuttals and decision making was also explained.
The minutes from the previous meeting were approved unanimously after being moved by Schwartz and seconded by Seer. No corrections or alterations were noted.
A motion was made to accept the minutes from the previous meeting. The motion was moved by Schwartz and seconded by Seer. The board asked for any discussions, corrections, or alterations, and upon hearing none, a vote was taken. All hands were raised in favor, and the minutes were approved unanimously.
Lori Merl was nominated and elected as the new secretary of the board unanimously. The vacancy was due to the resignation of the previous secretary, Julie Taft.
Following the resignation of Julie Taft, the board proceeded to elect a new secretary. Lori Merl was nominated and there were no other nominations. The board discussed her qualifications briefly and agreed she would do a great job, similar to her predecessor. A vote was held, and Merl was elected unanimously.
The board discussed procedural matters for addressing the agenda items, particularly the public hearings on appeals concerning tree removal violations. The approach to handle the appeals efficiently was outlined.
The board engaged in a discussion on how to efficiently handle the public hearings related to administrative appeals concerning tree removal violations. It was suggested to first address the argument of whether the property owner, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, should be held liable for the actions that took place on their property. If not resolved, the Bishop wished to join the arguments of the co-appellant, the Portland International Jetport.
A motion was made to limit public comments to three minutes per person to prevent filibustering and ensure the meeting proceeds efficiently. The motion was passed unanimously.
The board considered a motion to limit public comments to three minutes per person. This was proposed to prevent unnecessary delays and ensure that the meeting proceeds in an orderly manner. The motion clarified that each individual would have a total of three minutes to speak, regardless of the number of items they wished to address. The motion was passed unanimously after discussion.
The board heard from the representative of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland regarding their non-involvement in the tree cutting activities. The argument centered on the Bishop's role as a property owner and their non-participation in the violations.
The board heard arguments from Paul Driscoll, representing the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland, concerning their non-involvement in the tree cutting activities that led to the violations. Driscoll argued that the Bishop merely allowed the Portland International Jetport access to the property for safety-related tree removal in compliance with federal law and did not participate in any tree cutting activities. The legal exemptions for such activities were also discussed. The board sought to determine if the Bishop's role as property owner constituted liability under the current ordinances.
The board and city staff discuss the notice of violations issued regarding tree removal and land use violations on properties owned by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland in coordination with the Portland International Jetport.
During this segment, the enforcement officer and director of planning discuss the drafting of notice of violations related to the Dawson street and Broadway parcels. The board has independent counsel to guide them. Both the landowner and the applicants for the permits are put on notice, which is common practice. The Dawson street parcel had no permits for the work done, raising procedural questions. The discussion covers the necessary parties involved if the case is appealed or goes to litigation, and the ties between the parties are noted. The argument presented by the Bishop's representative is addressed, questioning their responsibility since they only allowed access but did not perform the work. Various questions from board members are addressed, including the responsibility of landowners for violations occurring on their property, the involvement of federal regulations, and procedural aspects of the notice of violations. The board discusses the argument that the landowner did not engage in the actions cited in the notice and whether they should be held liable.
Board members discussed the responsibility of permit violations, focusing on the Roman Catholic Bishop's involvement and liability in the actions cited in the violation notices.
The discussion centers around the liability of the Roman Catholic Bishop regarding permit violations. Board members expressed differing opinions on whether the Bishop, as a property owner, was liable for the actions of contractors. Some members argued that the Bishop did not actively participate in the activities, while others suggested that allowing contractors on the property indicated a level of engagement and responsibility.
A motion was made and voted on to find the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland engaged in actions cited within violation notices. The motion passed with a 4-2 vote.
A board member proposed a motion to find the Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland engaged in actions cited within the violation notices due to coordination with contractors. After discussion, the motion was put to a vote, which resulted in 4 in favor and 2 opposed, thus the motion passed.
The board discussed consolidating the discussion of issues, evidence, and arguments for multiple appeals into one consolidated discussion to streamline the process.
The board discussed the possibility of consolidating the discussion for four separate appeals related to the Roman Catholic Bishop and the Portland International Jetport. The consolidation would be for efficiency and due to overlapping legal issues. It was clarified that this would not merge the appeals but would allow arguments and evidence to be discussed together. A motion was made to consolidate the discussions, which passed unanimously.
Representatives from the Portland International Jetport presented their case regarding tree clearing necessary for aviation safety, detailing the permitting process and compliance with FAA regulations.
Gordon Smith, representing the Jetport, introduced airport manager Paul Bradbury and engineer Dwight Anderson. Bradbury outlined the necessity of tree clearing as part of long-term safety and compliance projects for the airport. Anderson detailed the permitting process with various agencies and emphasized the environmental assessments conducted. The presentation aimed to justify the actions taken by the Jetport and to explain the regulatory requirements met during the process. They argued that tree clearing is a necessary safety measure under FAA regulations, and emphasized the environmental considerations in their approach.
The board of appeals conducts a Denovo review, examining issues without reference to prior decisions by the code enforcement office or planning staff. This involves determining the existence of any violations as alleged.
The board of appeals is reviewing the issues in a Denovo manner, meaning they are looking at the issues fresh and without deference to the previous determinations made by the code enforcement office or planning staff. They must determine if there are actual violations, as there are allegations of violations in the Notices of Violation (NOVs). The speaker argues that most of the alleged violations do not constitute actual violations of the South Portland ordinances.
Discussion on tree clearing activities conducted under an issued permit and in line with federal requirements. The jet port seeks clarity on future tree clearing to ensure compliance with federal safety standards.
The discussion focuses on the tree clearing activities that took place on the Broadway parcel, which were conducted under a permit issued prior to the enactment of the tree protection ordinance. The speaker explains that the clearing was done in accordance with federal statutes that govern the retroactive application of ordinances to permits. The jet port seeks clarity on what constitutes FAA-required tree clearing to maintain safe approaches, as federal law requires not only the removal of current obstructions but also prevention of future ones.
There are allegations of violations related to site disturbance, wetlands impact, and compliance with planning board requirements. The jet port is willing to accept new wetland delineations and remediate any impacts.
The discussion covers alleged violations related to area disturbance under the zoning ordinance, impacts on wetlands, and compliance with planning board requirements. It is noted that tree cutting without soil disturbance does not count as area disturbance. The jet port had areas of disturbance assessed by an independent consultant, which were below the threshold for planning board review. In terms of wetlands, there is acknowledgment of a newer delineation showing more wetlands than previously identified, and the jet port is willing to remediate impacts and pay mitigation fees. They have been in contact with the DEP and Army Corps regarding this matter.
There were failures to conduct a pre-construction meeting and install appropriate erosion control measures. The jet port acknowledges these issues and the necessity for better practices in future projects.
The discussion highlights the alleged failures related to not conducting a pre-construction meeting specifically for the tree clearing work and not installing appropriate erosion and sedimentation control measures. Although a pre-construction meeting was held for the overall project, it did not cover the tree clearing specifically, which would have been a better practice. The jet port acknowledges these issues and has taken steps to stabilize the site and install necessary erosion control measures after the fact.
The discussion focuses on the legal exemptions to the tree protection ordinance for tree removal necessary for maintaining safe aircraft clearance as required by federal law.
The meeting discusses the exemptions to the tree protection ordinance, specifically the provision that exempts tree removal necessary for maintaining safe clearance for aircraft as required by federal law. There is a discussion on how the jet port, which receives federal funding, is required to comply with FAA regulations that mandate tree removal to maintain safe airspace. The gray area discussed is the removal of trees that are not yet penetrating the airspace but may do so in the future, which is also considered a federal requirement.
Discussion of FAA regulations requiring obstruction clearing below approach surfaces and federal funding conditions.
The discussion covered the requirements set by the FAA for clearing obstructions below approach surfaces at airports. It was noted that federal funding for such clearing is typically provided only once, prompting some airports to opt for clear-cutting and annual mowing to comply with the regulations. The conversation also touched on the specifics of the Portland International Jetport's approach to this requirement, referencing exemptions in local ordinances for aviation operations.
Review of federal law and local tree ordinance exemptions related to maintaining aviation safety.
The meeting examined the intersection of federal law and local tree ordinances concerning tree removal for aviation safety. It was clarified that the FAA mandates the removal of current and prevention of future obstructions to airspace, and that local ordinances provide exemptions for such activities when they are necessary for maintaining safe aircraft clearance. The discussion included specific sections of the ordinance that relate to the Portland International Jetport.
Clarification of height standards for obstructions and FAA approach to enforcement.
The conversation focused on how the FAA enforces height standards for obstructions near runways. It was explained that the FAA has specific height standards that must be adhered to, and any obstructions like cranes or trees that penetrate these standards could result in runway closures until mitigated. The procedures for dealing with such obstructions were outlined, emphasizing the importance of maintaining clear airspace for flight safety.
Discussion on the Jetport's approach to tree clearing, including challenges and strategies.
The Portland International Jetport's approach to tree clearing was discussed, highlighting the challenges of maintaining clear airspace while adhering to environmental regulations. Due to unique land ownership issues near the runway, the Jetport has adopted a more targeted approach rather than clear-cutting. The meeting also covered the Jetport's compliance with federal funding requirements and local environmental considerations to minimize impacts on wetlands.
Explanation of process and maps used for tree removal planning and execution.
The meeting detailed the creation and revision of maps used for planning tree removal at the Jetport. These maps identified areas of disturbance and were revised as the project progressed. The map creation process involved input from environmental scientists and was used to track compliance with both federal and local regulations. The decision-making process behind tree removal, including the need to remove stumps for equipment access, was also explained.
Legal discussion on permitting requirements for tree removal and compliance with city ordinances.
The legal aspects of tree removal at the Jetport were discussed, focusing on the permitting process and compliance with city ordinances. The conversation included whether the tree removal activities met the exemption criteria under the local tree protection ordinance and the Jetport's position on any violations. The discussion also addressed the complexities of working with multiple property owners and obtaining necessary permissions for tree removal.
Analysis of environmental impact and calculation of disturbed areas for compliance purposes.
The meeting analyzed the environmental impact of tree removal at the Jetport, focusing on how disturbed areas were calculated. The Jetport's environmental scientists conducted surveys to determine areas of disturbance, adhering to the local ordinance definitions. The discussion covered how these calculations were made, the criteria used, and the differences in interpretation between the Jetport's and the city's assessments of disturbed areas.
The board discusses the disturbance delineation done in April versus January, questioning the evidence provided by an environmental scientist and whether the city has any contrary evidence.
During this section, the board is conducting a de novo review regarding the disturbance delineation conducted by an environmental scientist. The appellant provided affirmative evidence by a licensed environmental scientist who delineated areas of disturbance. The board is questioning if the city has any evidence to counter the appellant's claims.
Discussion on mitigation for wetland impacts and violations on Dawson Street and Broadway, including potential delineation issues and overlapping mitigation plans with New Leaf LLC.
The board discusses wetland impacts on Dawson Street and Broadway, addressing whether there are violations and the need for mitigation. The potential overlap with New Leaf LLC's delineation map is mentioned, and the board questions the mitigation plan in relation to multiple developments on overlapping parcels.
The board questions whether tree removal on the Broadway parcel by the Jetport was materially in compliance with the planning board permit, including pre-construction meetings and erosion control.
The discussion focuses on whether the Jetport conducted pre-construction meetings as required and if the tree removal activities were in compliance with permits. The board reviews standards for erosion and sedimentation control and the Jetport's rationale for timing and execution of tree removal.
Members of the public express concerns about tree removal impacts, flight path changes, and neighborhood disruptions, emphasizing the need for accountability and restoration.
During the public comment session, residents voice their disapproval of the tree removal and its impact on their neighborhood. They express concerns about changes in flight paths, increased noise, and the lack of transparency and accountability from the Jetport and the Diocese. They urge for stricter fines and restoration efforts to protect their community.
Residents expressed concerns about the tree removal on Dawson Street for a proposed solar farm, discussing impacts on the environment and questioning the decision-making process.
Multiple residents voiced their objections to the tree removal near Calvary Cemetery, citing environmental impacts and lack of communication. Concerns were raised about the solar farm project, the use of Dawson Street for access, and the decision to enter a five-year contract for land clearance. Emotional testimonies highlighted the distress caused by the loss of trees and wildlife. Questions were raised about accountability and transparency of the decisions made by the diocese and the airport.
The board reminded attendees that only presented and admitted evidence can be considered, acknowledging the public concerns raised during the meeting.
A board member reminded the public that their decisions could only be based on evidence presented and admitted during the meeting. The board noted the public's concerns and the importance of considering the evidence and facts when making decisions.
The board discussed scheduling the next meeting to ensure proper notice to the public, aiming for a date that allows adequate public participation.
The board discussed potential dates for the next meeting, emphasizing the importance of providing adequate notice to the public. They considered legal requirements for public notification and attempted to schedule a date that would accommodate public participation while complying with city regulations.
The meeting was adjourned after discussing the next steps and scheduling the follow-up meeting to address unresolved issues.
The meeting was adjourned after the board discussed the next steps, including scheduling the next meeting. The board expressed regret for not being able to address all issues during the current session and emphasized the importance of resolving these issues in the upcoming meeting.