Entire neighborhood in Southwest Harbor blasts appeals board, code officer for allowing 'monstrosity' building addition
SOUTHWEST HARBOR, June 13, 2025 - How do you alienate one of the island’s venerable summer colonies in just a few weeks?
A New York couple and the the town’s appeals board managed to do exactly that.
They drew the ire of neighbors on and near Clark Point Road when the board denied on June 4 an appeal of the town’s permitting of the couple’s outsized “accessory dwelling unit” which rivals the main house in girth, height and scale.
The appeal was filed by Bill and Kay MacIntosh of 76 Clark point Road who said they could reach out and touch the two-story edifice being erected next door, so tight was the space permitted by the code officer John Larson.
This was not your typical nimby plaint, where one or two abutting neighbors objected.
The building in question is at the juncture of six roads, so the rising edifice is obvious to many who pass by the house every day.
The Clark Point Road area has one of the highest concentrations of summer residents on MDI. As residents begin their migration back to Maine, many are aghast at the sight of the addition to 72 Clark Point Road at the corner of Harbor Avenue.
“What is that monstrosity?”
“Is that legal?”
“Can they do this?”
The comments were not in hushed tones. They were loud enough for a reporter to hear.
The MacIntoshes argued that the code enforcement officer exceeded his authority by issuing a permit for a structure that should have required Planning Board approval, especially due to its change of use and setback issues.
The appeals board denied their request by a 3-2 vote based on the technicality that the couple did not file their appeal in time. The board did not rule on any substantive arguments while denying all the neighbors an opportunity to speak to oppose the project.
“There were like 30 people there who wanted to speak, and they just cut everybody off. Nobody could say a word,” said Pat Jackson, who lives with his wife Carol Sullivan Jackson down the lane two houses away.
Jackson, who was a designer by profession, took offense that the architect would place a modern building with a roof deck amid a village of colonial and hundred-year-old seaside cottages.
“It would have been nice if he had more compassion for the neighborhood,” Jackson said of the firm MMH Architects, owned by Bill Hanley, chair of the Planning Board in nearby Mount Desert. Two years ago Hanley voted against the majority of the Mount Desert board when he felt a proposed workforce housing project in Northeast Harbor was not consistent with the “character” of the village.
In the audience the night of June 4 was Ann Judd, who owned both properties, 76 and 72 Clark Point Road, in 2003 when she applied for a variance which the appeal board granted to build a non-conforming greenhouse at 72 Clark Point Road.
Judd is a horticulture judge for the Garden Club of America, a master gardener and a master naturalist. She is also the volunteer coordinator of the Charlotte Rhoades Park and Butterfly Garden.
The appeals board no doubt took into consideration that she owned both connecting properties and that there was no apparent conflict between neighbors.
Ann Judd said in an interview that the 2003 variance granted was for a non-conforming greenhouse. “There was only one floor.”
It had no second floor, no bathrooms, no bedrooms, she said.
”What was shocking was that they changed the use. They put a second story on the structure,” she said of the application from Justin Podjasek, a partner in the international commercial real estate law firm Winston & Shawn, and his wife.
Judd, who has since moved, was asked by friends and former neighbors, to attend the appeals board meeting to show support and to counter any misrepresentation of the facts.
“ I was very shocked. I have a very good friend who lives directly across the street from the driveway of number 72 and she was very upset, and I said I would go listen what was happening.”
Twenty two residents added their names to the sign-up sheet at the June 4 meeting, according to appeals chair John Izenour. Five were on Zoom.
Since the hearing, others have taken up the cause besides the MacIntoshes.
Select board member Natasha Johnson, who lives at 60 Clark Point Road, questioned whether the height of the building exceeded code.
In a three-page letter to the chair of the appeals board, Carol and William “Pat” Jackson at 10 Harbor Avenue cited numerous violations of the zoning code when Larson granted the applicants permits for the building.
“The most critical issue is that the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance does NOT allow a second residential dwelling unit on a single parcel unless it meets all dimensional requirements,” they wrote.
“We write in support of the June 11 complaint by Carol and William Jackson detailing the substantial Code Violation involved in that construction,” wrote Marc Arkin. “The building is not merely an eyesore, but its dimensions and use are out of keeping with the neighborhood and in violation of the Shoreline Zoning Ordinance to which it is subject.
Marc M. Arkin and Gregory G. Cossley have been seasonal residents for more than 30 years at 3 High Street.
They and others argued that the building:
Violated setback and height restrictions.
Made a non-conforming use even more non-conforming.
Should not have been permitted without Planning Board approval.
The permit, granted on December 18, 2024, allowed the construction of a two-story guest house on the footprint of the former greenhouse located just two feet from the property line shared with Bill and Kay Macintosh. The Macintoshes, who live seasonally in Maryland, filed their appeal on May 6 -139 days after the permit was issued. Town ordinances require appeals to be filed within 30 days.
During a lengthy hearing, the Macintoshes argued they were unaware of the full scope of the project until construction began in February. They said medical issues and delays in securing legal representation contributed to the delay. Their attorney claimed the town failed to follow required procedures and that the new building increases the nonconforming use of the property, warranting Planning Board review.
Some board members expressed sympathy and concern about the scale and location of the new building, but a majority agreed that allowing appeals well after the 30-day deadline could create uncertainty in future permitting.
“There are a lot of seasonal residents in town,” said board member Jim Geary, “but that can’t undo the need for a clear, enforceable deadline. Otherwise, nothing gets resolved.”
Mail forwarding by the postal service has faced multiple problems since the pandemic because of staffing shortages and operational errors.
It's become more common for mail to be significantly delayed or lost entirely during the forwarding process.
The MacIntoshes said they plan to file papers seeking a “reconsideration” of the appeals board decision.
Makes someone who lives in Bar Harbor wonder about the B&B approval for a fairly massive hotel erected in the middle of town. It sure was pushed through pretty fast, kinda like it would be down in NJ, DE and MD where anything near the ocean becomes a monstrosity in the name of a quick dollar.
. The appeal needs to be heard and the deadline is irrelevant with proof of good couse (luo,section ix.d.1a page 37) the 30 day may be waived. Seems like they have easily met the threshold.