Sears Island committee members seek commitment on DOT plans
By Tanya Mitchell
Staff Reporter
SEARSPORT (): Members of the Sears Island Planning Initiative Steering Committee prodded state officials Monday about how long they could expect the island to remain in its current state before a developer moves in.
About 50 people attended Monday’s six-plus hour meeting held at the Congregational Church. At that meeting, members of the SIPISC also decided they need more time to draft a use plan for the island.
The group agreed on a wide range of uses deemed inappropriate for Sears Island, including demolition of the causeway, unauthorized motorized vehicles, residential development, a pornographic drive-in theater, a nuclear power facility, coal-fired industrial or power plants, commercial development (restaurants and retail), casinos, chemical manufacturing, airports, airstrips or helipads, overnight camping, a situation where Maine residents would be charged gate fees, religious buildings and waste dumping.
Following those discussions, SIPISC member John Melrose suggested the list of inappropriate uses be compared to the town of Searsport’s Comprehensive Plan and the Sears Island Alternative Use Committee report.
The group moved through several instances of tough dialogue primarily directed at Maine Department of Transportation representatives and the group that presented "The Maine Vision for Marine Transportation" last month.
Committee member John Hyk launched that line of questioning during a presentation from DOT Commissioner David Cole on the state’s plans to complete three transportation-related studies in the next two years.
"I had assumed the three-port strategy, as it applies to the island, has been abandoned," he said. "I’m starting to think I’m wrong."
Hyk then asked Cole directly if the state had plans to position a port on the island.
At that point, Maine Port Authority Executive Director Brian Nutter referred to the state’s plans to take another look at the three-port strategy, a two-decade-old state directive to compete in the shipping market through use of the ports located in Eastport, Portland and Searsport.
Nutter said the study billed as the "“Port Development Plan for Maine’s Deepwater Ports," which is expected to be completed by spring 2007, could change the face of how and where shipping needs are met around the state.
The synopsis of the study, sponsored through a partnership between DOT and MPA, stated the two agencies are "working on the development of a strategic plan on how best to develop the state’s three deep water public cargo port facilities to maximize their potential. It will also look at the possibility of changing the number of ports."
"Does it need to be a two-port, does it need to be a 10-port strategy; that’s what we’re going to be looking at," said Nutter.
The Cornell Group of Fairfax, Va., will be the consultant on the report, which is aimed at lining the state up to be more competitive in the national and international shipping market.
Cole discussed two other efforts DOT is undertaking to gain a better understanding of where Maine fits into the local and regional shipping markets, one of them being the "Northeast CanAm Connections Study."
That study, said Cole, will evaluate economic opportunities for improved trade on regional, national and global levels for this state, as well as five eastern Canadian provinces (Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Quebec and Ontario). The study corridor will also include New Hampshire, Vermont and New York.
The study is being funded through a $1 million Congressional earmark under the Federal Borders and Corridors Program. The consulting firm Wilbur Smith and Associates, which consists of members from both the United States and Canada, is expected to complete that study by March 2008.
MDOT is also revisiting its 10-year-old "Integrated Freight Plan" for the third time since its creation, said Nutter. That effort will show changes to the freight transportation system in Maine, and the evolution of the industry since the plan was last revised in 2002. That update will be completed by December, Nutter said.
SIPISC member Ben Crimaudo requested clarification of the term "Port of Searsport," which was used in “The Maine Vision for Marine Transportation” proposal for the island.
Nutter said the "rule of thumb" for referring to a port is to include both sides of the harbor. Nutter said "The Port at Searsport" reference would encompass from the town pier to the island.
Scott Dickerson, executive director of the Coastal Mountains Land Trust and a member of the group that presented the "Preservation and Port: A Recipe for Prosperity" vision last month told the group the "Port of Searsport" reference was more than just semantics and rhetoric. He further stated that use of that term "implies justification to develop the island."
"If Sears Island is part of 'The Port of Searsport,' then, in fact, there is a proposal on the table at DOT for the development of Sears Island," said Dickerson. "That is why we need to clarify this."
Cole said the island was not part of the three-port strategy, and the state is only holding onto the island for future potential use.
Melrose, however, recalled what the intentions were when the state purchased the island in the late 1990s when he was commissioner of the DOT. He said there is a fully dredged berth off the island, there is a completed road and that it is managed through the department. "These are facilities that are meant for marine transportation," Melrose said.
"That’s exactly why I’m asking the question," countered Dickerson.
"Why don’t you ask the question again after the election," said DOT representative Fred Michaud.
Throughout the meeting, Dickerson sought some kind of commitment from the state regarding its plans for the island in the near future, adding it would help area "mom and pop" businesses to plan for their futures.
SIPISC member Astrig Tanguay, whose family owns and operates Searsport Shores Campground, spoke to that point. "I’m inheriting about 40 acres on the ocean in the next month and a half, and now I have to decide to either invest everything I’ve got into it or leave," she said.
Tanguay said if there was some level of certainty about what would happen on the island down the road, she could leave the region and start her business elsewhere. "I don’t hear anyone at the state talking about the fact that I am a hostage to this process; we are all hostages to this process," said Tanguay.
Melrose adhered to his opinion that any future development on the island would not stop the public from using the island in its current state in the meantime.
A development would not likely take up the entire 941-acre island. Melrose said, meaning the rest could be used as both a buffer and conservation area. Melrose also said the island is located between two industrialized areas, Mack Point and General Alum and Chemical, and that it does not compare to other natural tourist destinations in Maine.
"We’re making this out like it’s up next to Katahdin, and it’s not," said Melrose.
SIPISC member Larraine Brown said despite the existence of industry around the island, those who enjoy it regularly would disagree with Melrose’s statement. Brown further charged that anyone who spent any time on the island would not have made such a comment.
SIPISC member Dianne Smith reminded the group that while the dialogue was an important component to the committee’s effort, it was also important to remain focused.
"We need to remain focused on the whole point of this committee coming together," she said. "That is, what could be done in the interim, while it’s not a port."
Toward the end of the marathon meeting, Dickerson asked members of the pro-marine transportation group if they would be opposed to transferring management of the island from DOT to the Maine Department of Conservation until a port proposal for the island is presented.
Melrose said that move would require a legislative process, which may or may not result in the group’s desired outcome.
"The more you decide to take to the Legislature, the more you diminish this group," said Melrose. "... I don’t think I have enthusiasm for changing the jurisdiction of the island."
Dickerson said an agency like DOC would be better equipped to manage the island as a park than the DOT.
SIPISC member Jim Grossman of the Squaw Point Association suggested DOT commit to a 5-10 year hiatus, when no development would take place on the island.
"It would take five years to get the permitting, anyway," said Melrose. "… On an interim basis, things can stay the way they are and what’s the harm in that?"
Harlan McLaughlin of Fair Play for Sears Island, who presented a vision favoring total conservation of the island at the September meeting, said the discussions considering compromise had been "one of the most productive aspects of the whole thing."
The next meeting of the SIPISC is scheduled for Thursday, Nov. 9.
Based in Belfast, Staff Reporter Tanya Mitchell can be reached at 207-338-0484 or by e-mail at tmitchell@VillageSoup.com.
