Sad Day in Seal Cove -- Singh Pier is approved

From the Bar Harbor Times:


by Laurie Schreiber

TREMONT - The intersection between an area's scenic view and its character was the heart of an emotional struggle between the Singh family and neighbors, during last Tuesday's four-hour planning board hearing on the Singh dock.

For some, the scenic splendor of a short stretch of unspoiled coastline, looking out to sea to find only nature's sunset, a seabird, a seal resting on a ledge, was something to be left untouched.

For the Singhs and at least a few other residents, nature's beauty does not necessarily mean excluding the sight of human presence. A tastefully designed dock, Pritam Singh said, is in keeping with the character of the cove, which already has seven other docks yet remains beautiful.

But the opposition said the other docks are largely out of sight, tucked into the cove's curves, and don't impinge on the view to sea.

"We love this cove," said Sylvia Paine Constable. "We're very attached to this area. The view means a lot to us, and I am of the opinion that a huge dock is not an amenity. If anything, it's an eyesore. I know I have an equally large dock, but my father built that dock in 1930 and it doesn't impinge on anyone's view."

"I think it is out of character for the area," agreed Wendy Fielding.

"Most people, I know, would prefer nothing to be there," said Mr. Singh. "I think we'll do something very beautiful. We'll really take care of that land. We'll really protect that land."

Mr. Singh presented drawings of the main house he plans to build on the property. He said he also met with Maine Coast Heritage Trust to work out a conservation easement for the property with a provision that will limit development to six houses.

He also stressed the dock size was minimized as much as possible because of his own wish to preserve the beauty of the area.

The board considered four standards the dock must meet. The fourth says the facility may be no larger than necessary and must be consistent with the area's existing conditions, use and character.

For the Singhs, CES engineer Greg Johnston said the idea behind the design was to minimize the fixed length portion and make the rest, as ramps and floats, removable. The total length is needed, he said, in order to provide enough draft for a boat at low tide. Compared with other piers around Tremont, he noted, the fixed portion will be on the shorter side. The cove's existing piers, he said, make the proposed one consistent with the area.

Other standards pertain to soils and erosion control; interference with developed beach areas; and effects on fisheries.

The opposition argued the pier and the supposition of moorings and boat traffic will impinge on lobster and crab fishing; possibly damage eelgrass as habitat and forage for marine life; and possibly interfere with the presence of important wildlife such as wading and seabirds.

Carroll Butler said by midsummer there will be 50 to 60 traps around the pier area. He said it's an important area for molting lobsters.

The Singhs argued the approval won from all other relevant permitting agencies - Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Marine Resources, Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, and Tremont's Harbor Committee, as well as new findings from Inland Fisheries and the Submerged Lands Program - essentially speaks for the project's minimal impact on essential fish or wildlife habitat, navigation, traditional fishing, and public access.

The Singhs also won a retraction of an affidavit asserting the family had cut down a tree with an eagle or osprey nest in it. Mr. Singh accused the abutters' attorney, Doug Chapman, of perpetuating a falsehood in order to get public support against the pier. Mr. Chapman said his filing was backed by the affidavit.

"I believe this board and this process has been abused," Mr. Singh said.

Inland Fisheries and Wildlife biologist Charles Todd, who flew over the area to check out the charge, wrote he witnessed no evidence that trees felled or topped on the property were useable by bald eagles, and the area is rated "low" habitat for nesting eagles.

"I regret that false claims are introduced to confound permitting decisions," Mr. Todd wrote. "Most do not know that you have indeed been a good steward of eagle nesting habitat at Tinker Island, and thus the irony of this accusation is doubly tragic."

Chairman George Urbanneck said he was concerned the application referred repeatedly to the use of the pier by multiple homeowners, yet only one home is on the property. The pier, he said, must be a secondary use, and the use stated is for multiple homes.

Since the pier will be built before multiple homes, he said, the timing makes it appear the pier will be primary.

Pritam Singh said the homes would be built one at a time. In any case, he said, the point is moot because the ordinance allows piers to be built for a single home's use.

Applicant Rob Egbert's attorney Michael Ross proposed amending the application to refer to a single residence. Town attorney James Collier agreed that move would be acceptable.

Mr. Libhart, whose frontage looks at the Singh shore, said he doesn't object to the project.

"What bothers me more than anything else is the cost of what's going on here," Mr. Libhart said, noting the town is overbudget on attorney fees at this point.

Mr. Libhart added: "What amazes me more than anything else is all the innuendoes and outright lies that have been told about the Singhs."

Planning Board member Wayne Patton said he didn't think the pier would make that big a scenic difference; he noted people stop at Southwest Harbor all the time, where there are plenty of piers, to take pictures.

"You can't judge a project by feelings, unfortunately - or fortunately," Mr. Patton said.

Mr. Urbanneck took an instructive page from the project's emotional tenor when he urged people to sign up for the Land Use Ordinance Committee, which has seats open.

Mr. Singh must return one more time for a flood hazard permit. n