Sprague pulls Black Point Park proposal

The fate of the lawsuit over the Scarborough Beach proposal remains unclear

SCARBOROUGH — A 64-acre beachfront lot adjacent to Scarborough Beach State Park will remain farmland, and not developed into a 370-space parking lot, as proposed by property owner, The Sprague Corp.

Citing cost overruns, Seth Sprague, president of the Sprague Corp. and its subsidiary company, Black Point Resource Management, has pulled the Planning Board application that asked to open to the public 1,700 feet of beachfront property at 338 Black Point Road, adjacent to the 2,100-foot-long state park managed by Black Point.

The idea, first proposed 14 months ago, sparked outrage from neighbors, who packed municipal meetings.

“It’s going to be a big party down there,” said Edith Iler, drawing applause from more than 80 audience members at a hearing last May. Iler’s home is sandwiched between the two Sprague-run sections and, she said, “the shortest way to the beach from the western side of that new parking lot will be right down our driveway and then across our porch.”

In July, Iler and seven others filed an appeal in Cumberland County Superior Court contesting an interpretation of “outdoor recreational use” made by the town’s Zoning Board of Appeals, which allowed the project to proceed as a special exception to local zoning rules.

In a letter sent to the town, Sprague referenced the suit obliquely, when citing current and projected future costs as the reason for pulling the plug, a theme he continued in a follow-up press release issued to the media, about an hour later.

“It is a great disappointment to our family to have to make this decision,” wrote Sprague. “While creating a new beach park may not have been the ‘highest and best use’ of our 64-acre beachfront parcel, we felt improving access to Scarborough Beach was a worthy goal and a use of our property that fit well with our mission.

“Regrettably, the economics of our proposed project could not survive the rigors of the public process,” wrote Sprague. “Over the last 14 months, each and every step of the process has resulted in added costs and reduced viability.”

The project already had been permitted by the Maine Department of Transportation and was before the Department of Environmental Protection. Sprague wrote that he felt “confident” all permits could have been obtained, and that his company would “overcome any legal challenges,” but that, “unfortunately, that is not enough to overcome the financial realities.”

In a phone interview Wednesday afternoon, Sprague declined how much he has spent thus far on engineering, planning, permitting and legal fees. He also refused to ballpark a projected final cost for the project, whose sole revenue would have been parking fees and concession stand sales.

“I’m not going to get into that,” said Sprague. “It’s just that the projected costs were escalating way beyond what we thought prudent to put into that project.

“We’re really very disappointed that we weren’t able to afford to do it,” said Sprague. “It really would have been a great project.”

Sprague said the property will continue to be used as farmland. It the past it has been used primarily for corn crops.

Bacon has said that Sprague’s proposal met “the letter of the law,” contained in a May 2010 zoning change that allowed outdoor recreational uses in Scarborough’s “rural farming” districts. However, he noted that the change was made with hay rides in mind, in hopes people would not be forced to subdivide large tracts of rural land in light of property values that have continued to climb even during the national recession and a weak housing market.

The eight abutters who sued the town claimed the zoning board erred by declaring the beach parking lot, along with the site’s proposed boardwalks and limited trail structure, met the definition of “outdoor recreational use.” The beach, where any actual recreating might have taken place, is in a resource protection zone, not rural farming, they argued.

The appeal also claimed the special exemption permit failed to meet one other qualifying criteria – that it would not have an adverse impact on others in the area. The “use, value and enjoyment of their real property will in fact be adversely affected by the noise, odors, lighting, traffic, stormwater runoff, security, increased fire risk, potential groundwater contamination and general commercial activities,” claimed John C. Bannon, of the Portland firm Murray Plumb & Murray.

Bannon could not be reached for comment Wednesday afternoon. It is unknown if the suit, which all parties had agreed to stay pending final approval by the Planning Board, will be pulled as well, or if the abutters will force the issue to get court ruling on how to interpret “outdoor recreation,” as a hedge against future development in their backyards.

“I don’t know what the opponents are going to do, so we haven’t talked through those details,” said Bacon. “The town is going to wait and see how the objectors approach this.

“At this time, staff has not reflected on the definition, or suggested any language changes,” said Bacon, adding that qualifying the parking lot as a special exception under the outdoor recreation provision was the unanimous decision of the zoning board.