Gamage Shipyard plans to remove a large, crumbling shed, long a prominent feature of South Bristol’s working waterfront.
The shipyard might dismantle the World War II-era relic as early as November, Gamage Shipyard General Manager Steve Morris said, although various factors could push the date to March.
The late Harvey Gamage, a prolific shipbuilder, erected the structure around 1940 in anticipation of beginning construction of wood minesweepers and ship’s tenders for the U.S. Navy.
The shed, which Morris refers to only as “the green building,” remained in use for boatbuilding through the 1980s, becoming a storage facility thereafter. In the early 2000s, after the roof started to fail, the shipyard halted use of the building.
Morris and the project engineer, Tom Fowler of the Rockport-based Landmark Corporation, met with the South Bristol Planning Board Oct. 4 to discuss a three-phase plan for the historic property.
Following the removal of the green building and the remnants of wooden marine railways leading into the building (phase one) the shipyard plans to erect a replacement, 94 by 105 feet and 44.7 feet tall, with a modern railway (phase two).
The replacement would stand partially in the footprint of the green building and partially to the east. The remaining footprint, coated with gravel, would expand the shipyard’s outdoor storage area.
The new building, big enough to house 36 boats, would serve primarily as storage.
The shipyard plans to connect the new building to another building on the site by means of a smaller “connection structure,” Fowler said. The shipyard, which operates as a marina, also wants to make relatively minor improvements to a bungalow on the property.
The third phase, which Fowler and Morris didn’t discuss at length, concerns the removal and replacement of a house on an adjoining parcel.
Rory Cowan owns the properties, as well as a third property across the street, under the umbrella of Cowan Realty Group, LLC and other companies.
The proposed projects also include infrastructure adjustments, such as drainage and driveway improvements.
Fowler described the project as “a shifting of existing buildings and uses.”
The shipyard applied for and received three variances (building height, lot coverage and setback) from the South Bristol Appeals Board. It also received a plumbing permit.
The company still needs permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, the Dept. of Environmental Protection, the South Bristol Board of Selectmen and the South Bristol Planning Board.
A handful of neighbors objected to various aspects of the project. Lewis Kelsey, a lobsterman and resident of Shipyard Road, said it could make it difficult for him to navigate to and from his wharf.
“My wharf has been there since 1906 – a continual, commercial wharf,” Kelsey said. “I don’t think I should be blocked by a millionaire’s yacht.”
Priscilla Marino, owner of a property at the corner of Rt. 129 and Shipyard Road, found fault with the aesthetics of the project.
“It truly affects me to look out and see a building that’s going to be that high,” Marino said, referring to the proposed storage facility. “That is pretty massive.”
The shipyard’s plans actually call for a replacement building nearly five feet shorter than the green building.
Charlie Hughes, a property owner on Rt. 129, said the project would have “negative consequences on all the properties facing it” and would “lower the value of my property and make living where I live far less attractive.”
Hughes, Marino and others objected to the Appeals Board decision to grant the variances and said they would have liked to attend the Appeals Board meeting, but didn’t know about it.
Members of the planning board pointed out that the town advertised the meeting in The Lincoln County News, although at least one member admitted to being unaware of the meeting, too.
Following the hearing, the board voted 4-0 that “there’s no requirement… to issue a permit for the demolition of the ‘green building.'”
Chairman Rory Craib recused himself from the matter. His predecessor, Ralph Norwood III, ran the hearing in his absence.
Board member John Harris, after the vote, suggested a different point of view on the project.
“If I were an abutting property owner, I would rather see a new building than what is there right now,” he said. “This whole project, if we can work through it, I think, is a benefit to the town, is a benefit to abutters.”
Morris concurred. “They will actually see less structure with the new facility than they do now,” he said.
The board tabled the shipyard’s application for phase two of the project – the construction of the replacement building and associated changes to the property. The board will meet next on Tues., Oct. 18 at 7 p.m.
