NORTHEAST HARBOR – After four months in limbo, William Stewart’s proposal for a 1,728 square-foot expansion of his float system in Somes Sound was denied Wednesday, sunk by its sheer size.

“Eventually, we’re going to be forced to draw a line,” said zoning appeals board member Edward Dunham. “We’ve got a qualitative question without any line as to where to fix the limits.”

Through nearly three hours of debate, members of the appeals board wrestled with the subjective judgments required to determine whether Stewart’s proposal met the vague criteria in Mount Desert’s land use zoning ordinance, and took a first step toward drawing that hard and fast line.

By the closest of margins – a 3-3 tie vote, which means the application was denied – members of the board disallowed the amendment to Stewart’s conditional use permit because they believed the floats’ size and orientation would not be compatible with the area, and because a private pier and float complex of this scope was deemed not in keeping with the historic character of the neighborhood.

Stewart applied to the Mount Desert planning board for a conditional use permit in September, requesting the town’s permission to install four seasonal floats along an existing 350-foot pier, so he could dock his new 154-foot sailboat and several smaller boats for his grandchildren. His permit was granted.

But neighbors and lifelong Somes Sound summer residents Redmond and Jean Finney appealed the decision, claiming that Stewart’s enhanced pier would be an eyesore. More importantly, they claimed that the “mini-marina” would be an affront to the language in Mount Desert’s comprehensive plan, which directs that “each proposal for development within the town must be judged in relation to its effect on the preservation of natural beauty.”

The appeals board discarded the planning board’s decision and began its new round of hearings Nov. 28, when lawyers for Stewart and the Finneys introduced scores of documents and dozens of experts. The hearing continued Dec. 13, when more than 100 summer and permanent residents supported the Finneys’ stance with letters and public statements.

Despite the myriad issues introduced during eight hours of testimony – everything from sediment deposition patterns to how far inland small sailboats venture while navigating the sound were in dispute – Wednesday’s denial came down to the proposed floats’ appearance.

Based on expert testimony, appeals board members unanimously determined that the proposed Stewart floats would not interfere with fishing in the area, nor would they qualify as a nuisance that endangers the health or safety of residents. They voted 5-1 that the proposed floats were no larger than necessary for their purpose – docking a 154-foot boat.

But when subjective criteria requiring appeals board members to weigh the aesthetic and cultural impact of the floats were considered, the board grew divided.

Dunham and fellow appeals board member Julie Smith claimed, as did the Finneys, that the floats could not be considered in a vacuum. The presence of Stewart’s boats is an important consideration when determining the project’s visual impact, they said.

“You wouldn’t be putting the floats in if you weren’t going to use them for something,” Smith said.

Other members adhered to a strict reading of Stewart’s application, which describes only his floats.

“The application is for the float. What he ties up to it is none of our business,” said board member George Lauriat.

The conservative interpretation prevailed. However, board members determined that the floats alone constitute a visual impact that is not compatible with neighboring properties.

Stewart’s proposed floats would have created a T-shaped structure. The floats, as designed, would rise a scant 2 feet from the water’s surface and add only 12 feet to the pier’s length. But when viewed head-on, as many boaters in the sound would be forced to do, the structure would span 108 feet, said board member Bill Firm.

Richardson added that the new floats would double the size of Stewart’s float system, an increase that, to him, constituted a tremendous impact.

Lauriat countered that all floats are, by nature, difficult to spot. “You’ll be lucky if you see it flying over in an airplane,” he said.

And compared to the large piers of Stewart and several of his neighbors, the floats’ impact would be of little consequence, said board member Kevin Walls. “No matter what, you’re seeing a pier there anyway,” he said. “To me the existing use hasn’t really changed. It’s still going to be a float, there’s just more of it.”

The board toyed with a compromise, requiring Stewart to limit the time his floats could be in the sound, and paint the visible surfaces an unobtrusive color. But with a vote at 8:20 p.m., Smith, Richardson and Dunham prevailed.

Because Stewart’s application failed to meet one of the ordinance’s requirements, namely that it was too big compared to other uses in the area, it was defeated. But board members went on to consider, and reject, Stewart’s claim that his floats would not sully the neighborhood’s character.

“Character of the area – that’s always the $64,000 subjective question,” Richardson said.

With a second 3-3 tie, the board voted that the floats would not meet the area’s character for a number of reasons.

Dunham claimed that the floats represent a proliferation of shoreline development that, as many residents testified, is seen as inappropriate in the lands bordering Acadia National Park.

Smith and Firm believed that the neighborhood’s character referred more generally to its natural beauty and the economic value of its resources.

“This is part of our community. It’s what our economy is based on,” Smith said. “We’re known for our natural beauty.”

Neither Stewart nor the Finneys were available for comment Wednesday night.