City files court challenge for UNE pier approval

December 4, 2025December 4, 2025 ~ Randy Seaver ~ 1 Comment

By RANDY SEAVER, Editor

Although the Biddeford Planning Board narrowly approved the University of New England’s controversial pier proposal in August, a required building permit will not be issued by the city until a decision comes down from the York County Superior Court.

The city has filed a formal complaint against the Saco River Corridor Commission (SRCC), a quasi-state agency tasked to review and control development on the Saco River.

*The city of Biddeford will not issue a building permit for UNE’s controversial pier proposal until a decision regarding the validity of the review process comes from York County Superior* *Court*

As first reported in the Biddeford Gazette, new questions were raised in October about the review process. Specifically, the city now says that a previous decision by the SRCC — from more than 24 years ago — should have disqualified the project.

In 2001, the SRCC and the university created a 250-foot, no-development zone along the shoreline of UNE’s campus. That agreement was made as a compromise to allow construction of two dormitory buildings that would exceed a 35-foot height restriction.

The university is now hoping to construct an access road for its new pier through that buffer zone.

During their review of the university’s proposal last year, the SRCC failed to consider its previous ruling. “It was a mistake,” said Cheri Dunning, executive director of the SRCC during an October interview with the Gazette.

Dunning described the mistake as an “omission of information.” Because the agency’s approval happened more than 30 days ago, Dunning said there was nothing the SRCC could do to remedy the error.

“Our staff is working hard to prevent this type of error in the future,” Dunning said.

A few days later, Dunning sent an email to Roby Fecteau, the city’s code enforcement officer. In that email, she opined that the SRCC can alter any decision it makes. She also denied saying that the decision was a mistake on the part of the SRCC.

“The condition was created by, and thus can be altered by, the Commission,” Dunning wrote in her email to Fecteau.

When contacted Wednesday, Dunning refused to answer any questions that were not submitted to her in writing.

The Gazette sent Dunning an email, asking for comments and clarification. She did not respond to our inquiry, as of press time.

City Attorney Harry Center said the formal complaint was filed because the city wants to “maintain the integrity of the review process.”

“We’re not seeking money nor damages,” Center said. “We’re simply asking the court to instruct the SRCC to reconsider the permit.”

In early November, the Biddeford City Council voted unanimously to seek “guidance about the permit” from the Maine Attorney General’s office.

The AG’s office declined the city’s request for intervention, citing the fact that the city has its own legal counsel and that the attorney general’s office would likely represent the SRCC in any legal action.

“Municipalities rely on consistent, lawful application of state permitting standards,” said Biddeford Mayor Liam LaFountain.

“When a statutory buffer required by a prior permit is overlooked, it is essential for the matter to be properly reviewed,” LaFountain said. “Our goal is to ensure that decisions affecting the Saco River comply fully with applicable law and long-standing environmental protections.”

Donald Furman serves as Biddeford’s representative on the Saco River Corridor Commission.

Furman, an attorney, said he had “no knowledge” of the city’s complaint, which was filed nearly two weeks ago.

“This is news to me,” Furman said when contacted by the Gazette.

In the city’s complaint to the court, the University of New England is listed as an interested party.

UNE spokesperson Sarah Delage said the university “respectfully disagrees” with the city’s position.

Delage said the permit issued in 2001 for new dormitory building does not preclude the building of an access road within the 250-foot vegetative buffer along the river.

“It allows for development within that zone if the SRCC reviews the plan and finds that it adequately maintains appropriate vegetation levels,” Delage wrote in a statement to the media. “During the SRCC approval process for this project, the SRCC provided feedback on UNE’s re-vegetation plan. The project that was ultimately approved reflects that feedback.

Delage also said the university never claimed that the University would never propose any activity within the vegetative buffer.

“The research pier is an important educational and scientific asset that will support UNE’s marine science programs and contribute to environmental research benefiting our coastal community,” Delage wrote. “UNE is committed to responsible development and environmental stewardship of our waterfront campus.”

______________

Randy Seaver is the editor and founder of the Biddeford Gazette. He may be reached by email: randy@randyseaver.com

Never miss another update! Subscribe for free today!

Back to the drawing board for UNE?

November 10, 2025November 10, 2025 ~ Randy Seaver ~ 1 Comment

City attorney finds new info, says UNE pier should go back to planning board

By RANDY SEAVER, Editor

Biddeford City Attorney Harry Center says that the Biddeford Planning Board should reconsider its prior approval of the University of New England’s controversial research pier.

Although the planning board narrowly approved the university’s proposal in August, Center now says the Planning Board should reconsider that approval based on new information that came to light a few weeks ago.

*An aerial view of where UNE wants to build its research pier (Courtesy photo)*

As first reported in the Biddeford Gazette, the Saco River Corridor Commission (SRCC) failed to consider a previous ruling that created a 250-foot, no-development, vegetative buffer zone on the university’s campus in 2001.

The SRCC described the error as “an oversight” and said nothing could be done to rectify that agency’s decision to approve the project last year.

Shortly after the Planning Board approved the controversial project, a group of residents filed an appeal with the Biddeford Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA).

The ZBA is expected to take up the matter at its next meeting on Thursday.

Center, representing the city’s Planning Board, filed a request Monday with the ZBA on behalf of the planning board and Biddeford’s planning department.

Center also discovered that the permit issued to UNE by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers may have expired.

“In the last 10 days, far too many
legal questions have been raised.”
— City Attorney Harry Center

A university spokesperson said the permit they received from the Army Corps is still in effect, and said the 250-foot no-development zone does not preclude appropriately permitted development.

Sarah Delage, vice president for communications at UNE, said the university received clarification from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in August that their permit remains in effect.

“The project was required to start prior to October 14, 2025, and the [Army Corps] has confirmed that the design and permitting process, which was underway well before that date, satisfies this condition.

Delage also said that “there is no inconsistency between UNE’s master plan –which was previously approved by the Biddeford Planning Board — and development within this buffer zone.

When asked about the legality of the SRCC’s permit, Delage said the SRCC’s executive director recently clarified that the approval remains valid and is neither under review nor in question at the SRCC office.

“The [SRCC] executive director sent her letter after consulting with the Maine Assistant Attorney General, who represents the SRCC,” Delage said.

“The university has carefully followed all legal and regulatory processes in permitting the project, and looks forward to continuing to do so,” she added.

Center said he has also researched prior versions of UNE’s master plan, and that those records reveal “that the University of New England’s master plan also references a 250-foot, no-development buffer.”

Red Flags Raised

Center said major red flags were then raised when Cheri Dunning, the executive director of the Saco River Corridor Commission (SRCC), wrote an unsolicited letter on October 20 to Roby Fecteau, Biddeford’s code enforcement officer.

In that letter to Fecteau, Dunning created the impression that the SRCC — while issuing UNE a permit for the pier — had deliberately overridden the 2001 order creating the buffer. She implied that present-day commissioners consciously intended to create new law. “The condition was created by, and thus can be altered by, the Commission,” she wrote.

Dunning specifically stated that the 2001 order was not discussed during the SRCC hearing. The current commissioners absolutely did not engage in any deliberative process to override the law created in 2001, according to the minutes from the August 2024 meeting.

Since the buffer was never even mentioned, the commissioners were flying blind, Center said.

“My legal analysis is that the order creating the 250-foot buffer remains in place, at least until the Attorney General’s office tells us that it has been rescinded by the commission,” Center said.

“The university has carefully followed
all legal and regulatory processes
in permitting the project, and
looks forward to continuing to do so.”
— Sarah Delage, UNE spokesperson

Center said the ZBA has the jurisdiction to send UNE’s application back to the planning board, and given all the new information that has surfaced, it should do so.

Furthermore, Center said the city may ask a judge to overrule the SRCC’s approval of a permit for UNE’s pier, and recent statements by Dunning that the 250-foot buffer and other SRCC decisions can be ignored by regulatory authorities.

“In the last 10 days, far too many legal questions have been raised,” he said.

Center said he has the full support of Mayor Martin Grohman and the Biddeford City Council to advise the ZBA as he did today.

Last week, the Biddeford City Council unanimously voted to seek clarification and guidance from the Maine Attorney General’s office regarding the 250-foot buffer zone.

The council’s resolution stated that the city “will withhold further permitting or authorization related to the proposed UNE pier to ensure full compliance with applicable state law.”

Center says he firmly stands by his previous legal advice on other issues related to UNE’s application.

“I have one duty, and that is to properly advise my client on legal issues at all times. New information has come to light, and I’ll continue to execute my professional responsibilities accordingly,” Center said.

_______________

Randy Seaver is the editor and founder of the Biddeford Gazette. He may be reached by email: randy@randyseaver.com

Never miss another update! Subscribe for free today!

Tensions run high during Planning Board review of UNE’s proposed pier

July 17, 2025July 17, 2025 ~ Randy Seaver ~ 3 Comments

Following a rather tense and emotionally-charged discussion, the Biddeford Planning Board voted 3-2 Wednesday to give preliminary site approval for the University of New England’s proposed research pier.

The controversial pier proposal has generated widespread public discourse for more than a year, even before the application was formally submitted in June 2024.

*This aerial photograph shows the proposed location of the University of New England’s proposed research pier (UNE Photo)*

Opponents – including area fishermen, private mooring owners and neighbors – have consistently said they wanted the university to consider an alternative location that was proposed by Harbormaster Paul Lariviere nearly two years ago.

City Attorney Harry Center, however, told board members that the so-called “alternative location” was not part of UNE’s application and thus, not subject to review and/or approval by the board.

City Planner David Galbraith began the discussion with an emotional statement, saying he has been vilified by project opponents and that “personal attacks” have called into question both his integrity and professionalism.

“I have been doing this for 30 years, and I have never been subjected to such malicious comments,” Galbraith told the board. “I and others involved in the review of this proposal have gone out of our way to be open, transparent and accommodating.”

Galbraith told the board that he was especially angry about a recent YouTube video that was posted by a anonymous Facebook page known as “UNE Pier Review.”

“Frankly, I am appalled,” Galbraith said. “I assure you that my integrity is worth much more than what any developer could offer me.”

“I have been doing this for 30 years,
and I have never been subjected
to such malicious comments.”
— City Planner David Galbraith

Planning Board Member Susan Deschambault reminded her fellow board members that the university’s proposal has already been reviewed and approved by several other agencies, including the Saco River Corridor Commission, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S, Army Corps of Engineers.

But alternate board member Kayla Lewis said she could understand why opponents and other members of the public were feeling angry and frustrated.

“UNE did exactly what they were supposed to do in submitting their application to us,” Lewis said. “But we also have to acknowledge and recognize that this review process has had a shaky foundation. Somewhere along the line, things got very blurred.”

Roch Angers was one of the two board members who voted against approval of the project.

“I have a lot of mixed feelings about the process,” Angers said. “But that has nothing to do with our city planner, who I think has done an outstanding job.”

Center told the board that the city’s ordinances are clear and that there is no legal basis for consideration of potential impacts to mooring owners or fishermen in the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance. Center also told the board that any concerns about the harbormaster being removed from the review process were also not relevant for the board’s consideration.

Resident Kyle Noble questioned why the Planning Board was even considering the application after what he described as a “faulty review process.”

“This is a once in a lifetime project,” Noble told the board. “And it’s forever.”

A UNE spokesperson said the university was pleased about the board’s preliminary vote.

“We were also encouraged by the comments made by city staff and planning board members correcting a number of false statements that have been made about the project,” said Sarah Delage, associate vice president of communications for the university. “We look forward to a final vote at the next meeting.”

John Schafer, the former chair of Biddeford’s Harbor Commission, has been a leading opponent of the university’s proposal.

“Obviously, I am very disappointed,” Shafer said during a brief interview Thursday. “There was a lot of misinformation thrown at the board and they acted mostly in lock-step. From my perspective, it seems that their decision was already made before the meeting started.”

NOTE: Board members Roch Angers and Matt Dubois voted in opposition to the application; Board Members Larry Patoine and Susan Deschambault voted in favor of the application. Board Chair Alexa Plotkin broke the tie, voting in the affirmative for the applicant (UNE). Kayla Lewis is an alternate, non-voting member of the board.

Randy Seaver is the editor and founder of the Biddeford Gazette. He may be contacted by email: randy@randyseaver.com

NEVER MISS ANOTHER UPDATE! Subscribe for free today!

Planning board hits pause button on UNE pier

June 18, 2025June 18, 2025 ~ Randy Seaver ~ Leave a comment

Following more than an hour of impassioned public testimony, the Biddeford Planning Board voted unanimously Wednesday to table further review of UNE’s controversial pier proposal until all board members can participate in a site walk.

Although the Planning Board conducted a site walk at the university on June 9, board member Roch Angers was unable to attend. Alternate, non-voting board members Kayla Lewis and Stephen Beaudette were also not able to attend the prior site walk.

*A large crowd turned out Wednesday to hear about and comment upon UNE’s controversial pier proposal during a Planning Board Meeting* *(Seaver photo)*

Unlike the planning board’s previous meeting in May – in which all public comment came from those concerned with the pier’s planned location — a half dozen people – mostly UNE students, staff, faculty and board trustees – spoke in favor of the proposal.

But residents concerned about the impacts of the project still outnumbered supporters by more than a 2-1 margin.

“It seems that this review process has somehow morphed into a PR event for the university,” quipped Chris Stone, a Hills Beach resident.

City Attorney Harry Center has been providing the board with legal advice and updates regarding relevant criteria for their ongoing consideration of the proposal.

Center has previously told the board that issues such as water depth and river current are not relevant factors for the board’s consideration.

Despite questions from some community members about why the city’s former city manager sidelined the city’s harbormaster – Paul Lariviere – from review of the project last year, Center still defends that decision, saying the harbormaster was clearly biased against the university.

Center also maintains that the city has been in full compliance within its own ordinances even though the person hired to review UNE’s application is not a trained or certified harbor master.

In fact, in a June 11 memo to the planning board, Center points out that it was John Schaeffer – the former chair of the city’s harbor commission – who suggested the ordinance should be updated almost two years ago.

Schaeffer has been an outspoken critic of UNE’s proposal and resigned his seat from the harbor commission last year, citing concerns about transparency and government process.

Although the person who the city hired to ‘sign-off’ on UNE’s application is not a trained harbormaster, Center says that fact is irrelevant, especially since the city updated the ordinance at Schaeffer’s request in 2023.

Impassioned testimony from both sides

Although not relevant to the planning board’s criteria for approval, several people told the Planning Board that the university provides the city with numerous benefits and the proposed pier will only augment those benefits.

Tim Black, a retired federal judge who became a full time Biddeford Pool resident three years ago, told the board that they should listen to and follow [Center’s] advice.

“We have learned that power dictates
the outcome. Powerful, well-connected
interests are always able to get their way.”
— Richard Rhames

“UNE is one of the top-10 institutions in the United States for marine research,” Black said. “They also provide a substantial economic impact and benefit to the city of Biddeford. The moment is upon us.”

Nearly all those who raised concerns about the proposal shared a common message with the planning board.

“A lot of this has been examples in misdirection and obfuscation,” said Mike Gerstner of Biddeford. “We all agree that UNE should have a pier, our only issue is where that pier should be located.”

Skip Irving said he is a member of the university’s board of trustees. “I cannot simply stand by and listen to the rhetoric,” he said. “Our mission is to train students for important work that is critical to our future.”

*UNE Assistant Professor Will Kochtitzky told the planning board that UNE offers several tangible benefits to the city and that their pier proposal should be approved. (Seaver photo)*

Former city councilor Richard Rhames told the board that they should consider how much work volunteers put into serving on subordinate boards and committees.

“These volunteers, these people with no real power, are often ignored or worse,” Rhames said. “We have learned that power dictates the outcome. Powerful, well-connected interests are always able to get their way.”

Another resident said the pier controversy reminded him of a prior Planning Board’s decision to locate the MERC trash incinerator in downtown Biddeford nearly 40 years ago.

UNE Marine Sciences professor Will Kochtitzky told the board that “our world is constantly changing, and we owe it to our students to be prepared for the future by giving them the ability to conduct year-round critical research regarding marine ecosystems.”

Kochtitzky – who moved to Biddeford three years ago — also told the board that he is frustrated and angry about some of the “rhetoric” he has heard and read about from those who want to see the pier built in a different location, approximately 200 feet downriver.

“We cannot afford to let a toxic political climate trickle down from Washington and impact Biddeford,” he added.

Carol Alexander told the board: “The pier is not the problem. Its proposed location is the problem. This will affect and impact future generations.”

*Former UNE student Mike Ramunno told the board that he will be adversely impacted if UNE is allowed to build its pier in their preferred location (Seaver photo)*

Mike Ramunno, a former UNE student and nearby mooring owner, said he doesn’t know anyone opposed to the idea of UNE building a new pier. He reiterated a common theme: “It’s about the location,” he said. “UNE simply cares about the aesthetic appeal of this.”

Randy Seaver is the editor and founder of the Biddeford Gazette. He may be contacted by email: randy@randyseaver.com

NEVER MISS ANOTHER UPDATE! Subscribe for free today!

Mayor defends city review of UNE pier proposal

May 5, 2025May 6, 2025 ~ Randy Seaver ~ 4 Comments

During a sometimes terse and heated meeting, Biddeford Mayor Marty Grohman defended the way the city has acted during the review of a controversial pier that the University of New England wants to construct on the Saco River.

The nearly hour-long meeting was held at the request of John Schafer, the former chair of the Biddeford Harbor Commission and a Hills Beach resident who has been outspoken about the need for transparency during the review process.

City Attorney Harry Center also took part in the late Monday morning meeting in Grohman’s second-floor office at City Hall.

Center stressed that the meeting was strictly informal and not part of the review process. “The mayor has simply set aside some time to listen to the concerns of a constituent,” he said.

Hills Beach resident and former chair of Biddeford’s Harbor Commission John Schafer points to a diagram that shows inadequate depth where UNE is hoping to build a 177-foot pier to dock its research vessel near the mouth of the Saco River (Seaver photo)

No one from the university was at the meeting, and other media outlets declined invitations to attend, according to Schafer.

Schafer’s concerns center on three essential points: the impact and necessary removal of at least seven private moorings on the river if the project is approved; concerns about the water depth where the university wants to construct its pier; and the process that has been used to review the university’s proposal.

The permitting process for the proposed pier is complex and multi-layered, requiring the review and approval by several state, federal and local agencies.

Earlier this year, UNE cleared two major hurdles in the review process, winning approval from both the Saco River Corridor Commission and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

But a very critical part of the review process is expected to begin in just a few weeks when the Biddeford Planning Board begins its formal review of the proposal.

“I don’t have any say over what the Planning Board does or doesn’t do,” Grohman said during Monday’s meeting. “I simply appoint members, and those appointments are then confirmed by the council. I think we have a really good planning board, and I have full confidence in them.”

But Schafer said he is concerned about the lack of public input during the review process and how the city has approached the project thus far. He also criticized the university for its “lack of transparency” and for “bullying those who raise questions and concerns” about the proposed pier.

“I think [UNE’s] application is both incomplete and full of misinformation,” Schafer told the mayor. “Don’t you think it’s a bit presumptuous for a private entity to dictate how the city will review its application; to show no regard for those who have private moorings in that area just so they can construct a vanity pier?”

When contacted by the Biddeford Gazette, a university spokesperson declined an opportunity to address Schafer’s remarks.

“Since this was not an open meeting and a representative from UNE was not present, it would not be appropriate to comment on the conversation that took place,” wrote Sarah Delage in an email response. “UNE will continue to follow the public regulatory process, and we look forward to presenting our application to the Planning Board.”

Schafer said he and “a growing coalition of residents” have no problem with the university building a pier to dock its 60-foot research vessel. Instead, he says, all the concerns boil down to the exact location of the pier and the dismissal of public concerns about the project.

Survey says?

Schafer roundly criticized Grohman for allowing former City Manager James Bennett to “silence” the city’s harbormaster and assistant harbormaster last year, preventing them from participating in the city’s review of the proposal simply because they voiced concerns about the pier’s location.

But Grohman shot back and said Bennett was simply trying to avoid the appearance of bias. He also reminded Schafer that the harbormaster’s role – as outlined in city ordinances – is strictly an “advisory position,” a change that was first proposed by Schafer himself last year when he was chair of the harbor commission.

Schafer said a growing number of residents have serious concerns about a review process that seems to have a pre-ordained outcome, pointing to the results and comments found in a recent public survey about the project.

Nearly 40 percent of respondents indicated that they had a
“very low” level of confidence in the city’s handling of the review process,
while roughly 30 percent of respondents indicated that they
had “moderately low” confidence in the city’s handling of the matter.

The online survey was conducted over several days in late April on a Facebook page called “UNE Pier Review,” a group that Schafer has helped organize.

The survey asked respondents a wide range of questions about the proposed pier and the review process thus far. The survey allowed respondents to maintain their anonymity.

The multi-question survey included feedback from 156 respondents, showing an overwhelming lack of public confidence on the issues of transparency and the mayor’s handling of the issue.

Nearly 40 percent of respondents indicated that they had “very low” level of confidence in the city’s handling of the review process. And roughly 30 percent of respondents indicated that they had “moderately low” confidence in the city’s handling of the matter.

*City Attorney Harry Center (left) and Mayor Marty Grohman listen as John Schafer details his concerns about UNE’s proposal*

Fewer than 10 percent of respondents indicated that they had “very high” confidence in the process, while slightly less than 20 percent of respondents indicated that they are not sure.

Many respondents added comments saying the city has been “too secretive” while other questioned the motives of city officials, speculating that some members of the city seem to have a “cozy relationship” with the university.

Grohman described the survey as “interesting,” but also said it was not a professional survey conducted by a polling firm.

“An anonymous survey is not something that a public permitting process could use, as it does not include an opportunity for all parties involved to publicly comment,” Grohman wrote in a text message to the Gazette after the meeting.

Schafer told the mayor that several mooring owners have already written to regulatory authorities stating quite plainly that they have “no intentions of moving their moorings where UNE wants to build their pier.”

Schafer also said that UNE has threatened the city with litigation if its desired location for the pier is not approved, referencing a letter sent to the city by Ron Schneider, the university’s lead attorney, several months before the university had submitted its application for review.

Grohman described Schafer as a good friend, and said he was happy to hear the concerns that were raised.

In a moment of levity during the meeting, Grohman pointed out that the mayor does not vote on or control the regulatory review process. “I don’t have the authority to change what sodas are sold in the vending machines downstairs,” Grohman laughed.

After the meeting Schafer said he very much appreciated the opportunity to share his concerns with the mayor. “Nothing in the meeting surprised me,” he said. “It’s about what I expected.”

Never miss another update! Subscribe for free today!