SEARSPORT - The Planning Board finished deliberations Thursday night on a proposed liquefied petroleum gas (propane) storage and distribution facility, ruling that the application by Denver, Colo.-based DCP Midstream did not comply with the town's land use ordinance and failed to meet established performance standards. 

A third vote found that the application complied with shoreland zoning rules, but in sum, the application was rejected.

The ruling was not a surprise — the development missed several marks on the first day of deliberations that effectively killed the project — but the last several days have had their share of interesting twists.

On April 2, DCP Midstream abruptly announced it was withdrawing its application. Speaking at the time, spokeswoman Roz Elliott described the decision as a courtesy to Searsport, to spare the town from further expenses related to the project. She went on to say that DCP Midstream has "no intention of doing any further development in Maine."

The board, however, rejected the request from DCP, and on the advice of town attorney Kristin Collins, opted complete the review. Collins told WABI TV5 on Wednesday that she recommended the board issue a final decision in because it "prevents this application from being resubmitted even two weeks from now and putting the board through the same process."

On Thursday, the board continued the deliberations started on March 27, weighing DCP's application against the town's land use, site plan review and shoreland zoning ordinances. Votes were taken on each subsection in turn, and occasionally the subsections were split into multiple votes.

The process got off to a bad start for DCP, when the board determined a portion of the development that lay outside of the industrial zone would violate restrictions for the adjacent commercial zone. The application also failed land use ordinance sections related to noise, and health and safety.

On Thursday, the lengthiest deliberations were on the fiscal impact of the development: Whether it would benefit the town's tax base, and what effect it would have on local property values, both generally and for abutters.

The board quickly agreed that the estimated $40 million development was unlikely to provide a comparable tax benefit to the town, and could even prove to be a liability. Similar facilities in other states, board members noted, had been assessed at a fraction of that amount. The increased valuation to the town was also judged likely to be offset by its effect on the state's school funding formula.

Board member Brian Callahan argued that the effect of a "disamenity" — a term used by a consultant that Callahan described as "a nice word for an eyesore" — like the LPG terminal would likely hurt local property values in the short term, but could also permanently depress property values.

Chairman Bruce Probert put it in more blunt terms.

"We've had four or five studies and there wasn't one that said property values are going to go up," he said.

Properties owned by Buddy Hall and Tom Gocze were discussed specifically. Angler's Restaurant and Bait's Motel, owned by Hall, abut DCP's proposed development property. Gocze's house, located east of the development property, would have an essentially unobstructed view of the terminal.

Gocze has lived in his current residence for 10 years. He put the house on the market shortly before DCP arrived and said he was advised to document activity related to the sale. Among other things, Gocze said he had at least one potential buyer walk after learning of the LPG project.

Factoring in appraisals and other data, the board ruled that the properties would lose substantial value. Gocze said he was impressed that the board was able to refer to a number of relevant documents from the two years while deliberating about his property.

"It's gratifying because we haven't seen the same kind of due diligence from the Army Corps of Engineers or DEP," he said.

DCP was judged to have the technical capacity to do the project, but because the application made under a subsidiary name, the board was not convinced that it had the financial capacity to meet the local performance standards. The entity — DCP Searsport LLC — had reportedly been given a letter of support from the established parent company DCP Midstream, but Collins said the letter did not amount to a financial guarantee.

"DCP Searsport is not highly capitalized. I think that's pretty clear," she said, drawing some laughter from spectators, some of whom have previously challenged DCPs accountability to the subsidiary.

In total, the application failed to meet four of ten performance standards for site plan review. In the area of shoreland zoning, the development was found to comply with all requirements.

Thursday night's meeting concluded with votes on each of the three sections. Board denied the application on both the land use and site plan reviews, and approved the shoreland zoning review. The votes were unanimous among the five board members by a show of hands. Each was accompanied by a spontaneous show of hands from members of the audience, signaling agreement.

The three votes constitute a final ruling from the planning board. The decision could be appealed, though as recently as Wednesday, DCP maintained that it has abandoned all plans for the Searsport terminal.

No representatives of DCP Midstream were present at the meeting on Thursday. Judging from the standing ovation after the board's final vote, the 40 people in the audience at Union Hall were mostly — if not all — opponents of the project. 

Among them, many have been actively opposing the LPG since it was first pitched to the town in late 2010. Public participation hit a crecendo in late 2012 and early 2012 as residents of Searsport, Belfast and other neighboring towns filled the cafeteria of Searsport District High School for a series of public hearings that spanned 11 nights between November and March.

But the project was contested long before then.

Peter Taber, a Searsport resident who has actively opposed this project, along with past bids to develop Sears Island, said the DCP proposal presented a potential tipping point for the town between industrial uses and those that hinge on the natural beauty of the area.

"We need places like this because we live close to cities," he said. "What we have here is valuable. You have to be very careful about degrading it."

On a satellite map of Searsport mounted inside Union Hall, Taber pointed to the existing tank farm at Mack Point, noting that not only were the tanks smaller and at a lower elevation, but they contained products, like oil, that are commonly used in Maine. A tank nearly three times as tall and filled with propane, which has a small market in the state, wouldn't have fit in from either a visual or economic standpoint, he said.  

Peter Wilkinson of Belfast, an active opponent of the tank for over a year, said the outcome was a testiment to the grassroots movement started by Thanks But No Tank in Searsport, which spread to neighboring towns and was eventually picked up by larger advocacy groups like 350.org and Move On.

"We got no help from regulatory agencies; we got no help from politicians," he said. "It was all just people, and it grew. We grew from 50 people to 7,200 [the second number is based on views recorded for a post on TBNT's Facebook page]. That's what it took, I think."

The planning board is scheduled to have a final look at the DCP Midstream application, but Probert described that step as more of a formality. The votes taken on Thursday, he said, represent the final ruling of the board.

"It's officially done," he said. "Now we've just got to seal the envelope an put a stamp on it."

Ethan Andrews can be reached at news@penbaypilot.com