This story will be updated.
The state’s top court has upheld a decision by the town of Mount Desert to approve a workforce housing project that was opposed by neighboring seasonal residents — a decision that will help the development to move forward.
However, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court did uphold one minor point of the neighbors’ appeal of the project, which would be located on Heel Way in the village of Northeast Harbor.
The local nonprofit group Mount Desert 365 has spearheaded the housing project as part of a mission to maintain the year-round community in the villages of Northeast Harbor and Seal Harbor, which have significant populations of wealthy summer residents. The lawsuit has highlighted tensions on Mount Desert Island, which has a significant population of wealthy seasonal residents, over the need for more housing that year-round residents can afford.
In the case of the Heel Way project, the court remanded a decision about open space requirements back to the town’s Planning Board, asserting that the board used an inappropriate method to conclude that such requirements do not apply to the Heel Way development. The court added that while the town’s explanation for reaching that conclusion may be “eminently plausible,” the explanation offered by the town in court was not the reasoning the board cited in making its decision that open space requirements do not apply.
“We must remand for the Planning Board to make the calculation, which may very well result in a finding that no open space is required,” the court wrote in its decision.
The court upheld the town’s approval on three other aspects that were challenged by the abutters.
It ruled that the lot where Mount Desert 365 plans to build six workforce housing units is not being subdivided, and therefore the road access into the property does not have to meet higher standards than a typical driveway.
It also found that the town is not required to round down to the nearest whole number when adding figures to calculate how many units are allowed on the property. The town had concluded those numbers added up to 6.8, which would allow for the construction of six units on the property, but the abutters argued the town should have rounded its preliminary figures of 3.9 and 2.9 down to three and 2, respectively, before adding them together, which would have resulted in a maximum of five units being allowed on the property.
The court also upheld the town’s decision not to require Mount Desert 365 to obtain a performance bond from a bank prior to starting work on the project.
