Park neighbor wants to settle boundary rift

ACADIA NATIONAL PARK — Despite the dire warnings, David Irvin is not swayed by the “can-of-worms” theory.

The Mount Desert resident, after more than five years of discussions, letters and appeals for a “common-sense” resolution to a boundary dispute between Acadia National Park and four Round Pond property owners, is now looking for a legislative solution.

But such a solution, he has been told, would be like opening a can of worms because it could result in vast and unpredictable changes in the 1986 legislation that established the boundaries for the national park.

Who knows what environmental group or special-interest lobby might appear once that sealed can has been opened, and all with additional reasons for other changes in the boundaries? Members of the park’s advisory commission counseled Irvin this week.

Spurred on by the interest of commission member Jack Perkins, the commission has agreed to hold a workshop with Irvin at 10 a.m. Tuesday, June 8, at park headquarters to decide how to proceed on the matter. Legislative representatives will be invited to the meeting.

Irvin and three neighbors own parcels of land on oval-shaped Round Pond in the town of Mount Desert. Park property includes the western shore of the pond; property on the northern and eastern shores is privately owned. Irvin and his family have a camp on their property; a second family, a house; the other two parcels are undeveloped.

When the boundary legislation was passed in 1986, an accompanying map outlined areas proposed for future acquisition on a willing seller-willing buyer basis. Portions of Irvin’s property and that of his neighbors which border Round Pond are within the line earmarked for eventual acquisition.

Properties so deemed cannot be developed if they were undeveloped at the time the legislation passed. If developed at that time, they cannot be expanded by more than 25 percent of their gross square footage. In Irvin’s case, it means he could never turn his camp into a house.

If those restrictions are defied, the government has the right to begin proceedings to acquire the property without the owner’s permission.

Another intent of the legislation, according to park deputy superintendent Len Bobinchock, was to keep Round Pond in its relatively undeveloped state, with no development within 200 feet of the shore.

For Irvin and his neighbors, the result of the unwanted distinction for owning property on the acquistion list is that future use of their own land is restricted. Those who own undeveloped parcels, Irvin said, can’t cut a trail on their own land to the shore.

“I’d like to be able to use my own land in a responsible manner,” he explained this week. Instead, he and his neighbors feel they are being penalized for having preserved the pristine quality of the area prior to the passage of the legislation.

At issue, Irvin said, is the line on the map itself. “The scale makes the line hard to clarify where it is.” A survey by the National Park Service completed after the boundary legislation supported the government’s point of view. “It’s clear that the park wants the pond,” Irvin said.

Irvin said he first attempted a “common-sense” approach to clearing up the boundary dispute with former park superintendent Jack Hauptman. His efforts were rebuffed by Hauptman, Irvin said.

Correspondence with Sens. George Mitchell and William Cohen in the late 1980s indicated their agreement that the boundary line was “ill-defined,” a position that resulted in the park surveying the property in 1991.

Bob Reynolds, who assumed the helm as park superintendent two years ago, worked with his staff to consider whether the park had any latitude to move the line to settle the dispute. They found none and have no authority to grant Irvin and his neighbors what they wish.

Irvin says he is now left with only two alternatives: sue the federal government, a process he does not relish, or pursue a legislative change, the so-called “can of worms” alternative.

To do that, he and the advisory commission — if it chooses to support Irvin’s claim — must ultimately convince a member of the congressional delegation to introduce a bill to amend the law.

At that point, the can is opened, Reynolds said this week. “Any other landowner can then ask their legislation to be a part of it as well as any other citizen around the country. Once it starts, how do you control it?”

Commission chairman Lee Worcester has echoed that concern. “Most local people fear reopening of the legislation,” citing concerns groups such as the Sierra Club will move in with their own agenda.

For Irvin, that argument points to the powerlessness of individual people. “The individual doesn’t have power unless in a big group that has lots of money. It seems immoral to me for the government to take the stand that it may only be a detail, but you lose, too bad. Explain to me why the park service has a higher standing than I do.

“I’ve got to find a reason, a motivation for (the congressional delegation) to work with me. Good will, honesty, wanting to right a wrong apparently isn’t enough of a motivation.”