Tag: John Schafer

Mooring owners to mayor: ‘We’re not budging’

~ Randy Seaver ~ 1 Comment

A stalemate is brewing on the Saco River.

Several private mooring owners in Biddeford say they are being ignored by city leaders and will not move their moorings on the Saco River to accommodate the University of New England’s proposal to build a new pier for its research vessel.

The university’s proposal was given preliminary approval from the Biddeford Planning Board on July 16. The issue is scheduled to appear back before the board for final approval on Wednesday, August 6.

The proposed pier would extend from UNE’s riverfront Biddeford campus toward the center of the river near the mouth of Saco Bay. The pier is designed to be roughly 130-foot-long with an 80 by 23-foot pier head section, a floating dock and gangway.

The pier’s location would displace at least two private moorings. But Paul Lariviere, the city’s harbormaster, says the university’s proposal would also adversely impact at least five other private moorings.

A view from the Saco side of the river where UNE wants to construct a large pier.

The mooring owners say they are frustrated and feeling as if they are being steamrolled by the city and other regulatory agencies.

“Nobody – no one – has talked to us about the impacts we’re going to be facing,” said Capt. Shawn Tibbetts, a commercial fisherman who has owned his mooring on the Saco River for 14 years. “No one will return my calls. No one is answering my questions or telling me what my next steps should be.”

Tibbets and others say they have tried contacting Mayor Marty Grohman, city officials including the former city manager and planning department personnel.

“We even called Senator [Susan] Collins’ office, and no one has even returned our calls,” Tibbets said.

Last week Tibbets and other mooring owners distributed a press release, essentially informing the city and the university that they will not move their mooring locations.

RELATED: Abutters raise concerns about UNE pier

Biddeford Mayor Marty Grohman refused to answer any questions about the mooring owners who could be impacted by the university’s proposal.

Grohman sent the Gazette a terse email statement on Thursday.

“Based on the advice of the City Solicitor, Harry B. Center, I cannot respond to your question at this time,” Grohman wrote. “There is a pending application before the Planning Board. Following any final determination, the city will act in accordance with the law with regard to any subsequent steps.”

The university has indicated that they would like to begin construction of the new pier later this year, but it remains unclear about how they can proceed if the impacted moorings are not relocated.

Lariviere told the Gazette that he is the only person legally authorized to relocate moorings issued by the city of Biddeford. Lariviere also said he understands the concerns of the mooring owners and that he will not remove or relocate those moorings.

“There is no legal basis to remove those moorings,” Lariviere said, pointing to city ordinances, state law and long-standing maritime rules that have been in place for nearly 300 years.

“Unless the annual fees are not paid, or if the mooring is in disrepair; or preventing public access for fishing, fowling and navigation, my hands are tied,” Lariviere said. “I don’t care what the city manager says. I don’t report to the city manager. I report to the city council.”

AN ABSENCE OF LEADERSHIP?

The mooring stalemate comes at a time when new city manager Truc Dever is expected to begin her work on August 11; and while several city council and mayoral candidates are beginning their bi annual political campaigns.

Former city manager James Bennett – who is now suing the city – removed Lariviere from the review process of UNE’s proposal last year. At the time, Bennett said Lariviere was biased against UNE and that the city could face litigation if the pier proposal was denied.

RELATED: City manager quashes harbormaster

“This whole thing has become a big cluster,” said John Shaefer, the former chair of Biddeford’s harbor commission. “Much of this would not be an issue and could have been resolved if city leaders had just stuck to a review process that is based in transparency and public engagement.”

Shafer said he was pleased by how the Planning Board has handled its review of the proposal.

“They [the planning board] did an awesome job,” Shafer said. “I was not happy with their decision, but they did an awfully good job and provided plenty of opportunity for public input.”

Shafer, however, also said he believes that the mayor has missed an opportunity to “be a leader and to advocate for all citizens.”

“In May, the mayor told me he doesn’t have the authority to change what sodas are available from the soda machine at City Hall,” Shafer said. “He is either too afraid or unable to lead.”

He [Mayor Grohman] is either
too afraid or unable to lead.”

— John Schafer

A spokesperson for the university said it would not be appropriate for the university to comment on a matter regarding city policies and procedures.

“[We are] aware of two moorings that would need to be relocated if the pier is approved,” said Sarah Delage, associate vice president of communications for the university.

Delage said university officials met with the owners of one of the moorings in August 2024 but have not met with the owner of the second mooring because they have not been able to confirm that individual’s identity with any official information from the city.

“If the project is approved, the relocation of the impacted moorings would be the city’s responsibility, and it would not be appropriate for the university to speak on the city’s behalf about that process,” Delage added.

Lariviere said there is currently a list of more than 15 people waiting for an appropriate mooring location. “Even if I was willing to move them, where would I put them?” he asked.

Tom Hatch is a mooring owner who would be directly impacted by UNE’s proposal.

“Moving a mooring is not as easy as it might look,” Hatch explained. “Different vessels need different moorings. The size of the vessel, tide changes and many other factors impact moorings.”

Hatch also said he is frustrated by a lack of communication from the city. “We are being left in the dark,” he said.

Hatch owns a 29-foot vessel that requires a mooring location with a 65-foot diameter. He has owned his current mooring for a little more than four years. “Nobody from the city has reached out to me,” he said. “Nobody seems to care.”

________

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!

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

~ 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.

RELATED: Mayor defends city review of UNE proposal

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.

RELATED: City manager quashes harbormaster

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!

UNE hopes to correct ‘misinformation’

~ Randy Seaver ~ 1 Comment

Just a few days after hearing several negative comments from the public about their proposed research and docking pier, officials from the University of New England distributed a FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) document with the media and community leaders.

The university (UNE) says the FAQ document is intended to clarify “a variety of misunderstandings [that] have emerged about the project” and to “clear up misinformation that has circulated about the (proposal).”

CLICK HERE TO VIEW/DOWNLAD UNE’s FAQ Document

UNE_FAQ_ProposedResearchPier_May2025Download

Last week, UNE officials appeared before the Biddeford Planning Board to present an outline of their plan during a preliminary sketch review meeting.

That meeting drew scores of people, filling the council chamber while several other members of the public overflowed into the hallway.

During the public comment period, several people took to the podium, raising concerns about the plan and criticizing the university. No one at the meeting spoke in support of the proposal.

Former City Councilor Michael Swanton – who previously represented the city’s coastal area on the city council – told the board that he is neutral about the proposed pier.

An aerial photo showing the area where the University of New England wants to construct a new research/docking pier. (UNE photo)

During a telephone interview Wednesday, Sarah Delage, a university spokesperson, reiterated that UNE wants to be proactive and follow a review process that includes addressing public concerns, listening to opponents and responding to every regulatory agency’s particular request for information.

“From our perspective, we have clearly communicated with all the regulatory agencies,” Delage said. “We are absolutely committed to working in good faith with everyone and listening to all voices.”

UNE President James Herbert did not mince words about his frustrations regarding “misinformation” in a letter he sent to community leaders on Tuesday.

“Unfortunately, a great deal of misinformation has been spread about the proposal,” Herbert wrote. “UNE cannot continue to allow the level of misinformation and, in some cases outright false statements, to go unanswered.”

Herbert told community leaders that “most, if not all, of the comments that were presented to the Planning Board [during last week’s meeting] are irrelevant to the criteria that the Planning Board must apply to UNE’s application for site plan approval.”

UNE cannot continue to allow
the level of misinformation
and, in some cases outright false
statements, to go unanswered.”

— James Herbert, president of the University of New England

What do the critics say?

John Schafer, the former chair of Biddeford’s Harbor Commission and a retired engineer, has been an outspoken critic of the project for several months.

Schafer and other critics of the proposed pier created a Facebook page known as UNE Pier Review.

For more than a year, Schafer and others have been doggedly tracking the review process, raising concerns about “a lack of transparency” and other issues, most notably stating that the proposed pier should be located in a different location, closer to shore primarily because of water depth issues and impacts to existing moorings in the Saco River.

Schafer received a copy of the university’s FAQ document, describing it as “polished spin.”

“The public finally had an opportunity to speak at last week’s meeting, and apparently the university didn’t like what it heard,” Schafer said. “No one from the university reached out to me,” he added, saying it has been more than difficult to obtain documents from the university, including a copy of their request for $3.5 million in federal funding for the project.

“While reading this thing, my bullshit meter pegged the needle off the charts,” Schafer said.

Schafer raised several specific objections to the items listed on the university’s document, including the actual number of mooring owners who would be impacted; statements regarding whether the university has threatened to sue the city if their plan is not approved, and contrary statements issued by the university regarding the potential impact on federal funding if the review process is delayed.

“While reading this thing,
my bullshit meter pegged
the needle off the charts,”

— John Schafer, former chair, Biddeford Harbor Commission

“How can they with a straight face say that only two moorings will be impacted?” Schafer said. “Were they not at the same meeting as the rest of us?”

Schafer says that seven moorings will be impacted, dismissing the university’s offer to swap, purchase or relocate other moorings. “Exactly where would they be relocated?” Schafer asked. “There is not unlimited room on the river and there is a substantial waiting list of people hoping to get a mooring on the river.”

Delage, however, said the university has been making good faith efforts to identify and contact all mooring owners who may be impacted by the pier.

“The harbormaster previously indicated that only two moorings would be impacted in his communication to the (Maine Department of Environmental Protection) DEP” Delage said, adding that “there is no official record of mooring owners.”

While much of the public conversation about the proposed pier has centered upon water depth issues, the FAQ document provides more details about why the university picked their preferred site over an alternative that was offered by the city’s harbormaster.

According to the FAQ document, the university’s preferred site location (Site 7) “best meets the combined criteria (required). It is located where there is a small intertidal zone, comprised primarily of rock without sea grass, and the currents are slower because it is farther from the river channel.

“The dock’s main berth would be aligned with the current in the river and would be deep enough to provide all-tide access for the range of vessels expected to use the facility with the smallest overall footprint, thereby minimizing environmental impacts.”

Other issues

UNE’s FAQ document also addresses several other issues, including whether the university threatened to sue the city, claims about an ongoing FBI investigation and why Biddeford Harbormaster Paul Lariviere was removed from review of the proposal.

Almost exactly one year before Wednesday’s Planning Board meeting, former Biddeford City Manager James Bennett sent a letter to Lariviere, saying the harbormaster had been biased in his review of UNE’s proposal as evidenced by “several” public comments he has made outlining his steadfast objections to the project.

In its attempts to quell public misinformation about that subject, the university is encouraging members of the public to review a separate FAQ document that was released by the city of Biddeford last year.

Schafer says that the city’s move to quash both the harbormaster and the assistant harbormaster was simply part of an effort to grease the skids for the university. “Now look at where we are,” Schafer said. “The city spent $2,800 to hire a guy without any local knowledge or previous experience as a harbormaster to simply check the box and say that UNE had filed all the right paperwork. Heck, the city clerk could have done that.

Did UNE threaten to sue the city?

Ron Schneider, the university’s chief legal counsel, did send a letter to Biddeford City Attorney Harry Center on February 13, 2024, several months before the university submitted its formal proposal to the city.

 In that letter, Schneider wrote “It is our sincere hope that UNE is not forced to resort to litigation to avoid the delay and expense that will result if Mr. Lariviere were to insist on obstructing the building of the pier.”

UNE’s document describes that communication between the two attorneys as an opportunity to “raise concerns about serious due process errors” to Biddeford’s attorney. “The goal of this communication was to correct these errors to avoid having to appeal to a court.”

Another item that the university describes as misinformation, is a claim that the FBI is investigating the review process.

“After others claimed that the FBI was investigating UNE, the university reached out to the FBI and offered to meet with them, which they said was not necessary,” the university wrote in its FAQ document. “UNE has no reason to believe that the FBI is investigating the university.”

Schafer, however, said he and others were, in fact, questioned last year by the FBI about “the review process, not specifically about the university.”

Where do we go from here?

Despite some controversy, UNE’s proposal has received approval from every regulatory agency that has reviewed the project, including the Saco River Corridor Commission, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.

The review of the project by the Biddeford Planning Board is expected to be extensive. During last week’s meeting, board members asked UNE representatives for additional information and then voted unanimously to conduct both a site walk and a “boat tour” near the proposed location.

Schafer and others have praised the Planning Board’s “obvious commitment” to fairness and transparency. He says he will continue to keep a close watch on the project.

Delage says that the university is willing to meet with critics or others who would like more information about the proposal.

“The university really appreciates any opportunity to put more information out there for the public.” Delage said. “We are acting in good faith for everyone involved, especially those who use and cherish the river like we do.”

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

~ 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!