The Edgecomb Planning Board and town attorney Bill Dale were present at the Edgecomb Board of Selectmen meeting Monday, Dec. 29 to discuss issues that have embroiled the planning board and the town in legal complications.
Developments on Salt Point LLC’s property on River Road, allegedly in violation of the planning board’s approved use of the property, and an Edgecomb couple’s lawsuit against Edgecomb for classifying Coastal Dog Inc. as an agricultural use were the primary issues discussed.
“We’re here to make sure that we didn’t do anything out of line,” planning board Chair Jack French said as he unfolded the map of Salt Point LLC’s proposal submitted to the planning board on Aug. 10, 2010. Salt Point LLC is a limited-liability real estate corporation that formed in 2009.
Following planning board approval of a 14-lot subdivision in 2010, Salt Point LLC began to sell lots for development. According to the company website, www.saltpointmaine.com, Salt Point, “represents a deliberate attempt to create an extraordinary experience” and “offers its residents both tranquility and exhilaration.”
Some of Salt Point’s developments, however, have been in violation of the planning board’s approved use of the property, according to planning board members. Salt Point LLC presented the planning board with a proposal for 14 lots, a number just under the number of lots that would have required a review and approval from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.
In the plan submitted to the planning board, three lots were retained by the owners and were not part of the development. In February 2014, one of those retained lots was sold to a new owner. The matter came to the attention of the planning board when the lot’s new owner requested a permit to build a dock on the property.
That permit for the dock was granted, however, upon further examination, the planning board discovered that the lot the permit was granted for was not legal. In addition to selling unapproved lots, Salt Point LLC made improvements to a small access road on one of the retained lots.
Planning board members said the original plan approved by the planning board forbid the access road to be improved upon. “They went ahead and improved it anyway,” French said.
The planning board has already been in contact with the Department of Environmental Protection to discuss the situation. “I guess the question to you,” French said to Bill Dale, “is once we’ve approved something, can we undo it?”
“Sure you can,” Dale said, noting that he would need to examine the issue further before making anything other than general statements. Dale said any changes to planning board-approved projects would require the owners to reappear in front of the planning board to request an amendment to their plans. “When things are approved, they’re approved as is,” Dale said.
Dale said state law is particularly strict about changes to planning board-approved projects, especially when projects fall just under a limit that would require review by the state. “The law is prickly about that,” Dale said. “Frequently people try to finagle things past the state, so the law is strict about it.”
Dale also said any legal fees accumulated in the process of holding Salt Point LLC accountable for violating the planning board’s approved use of the property should be covered by the company. “The taxpayer shouldn’t be penalized for this,” Dale said. “If this is a violation that needs to be corrected, it should be on their nickel, not the taxpayer’s.”
Dale said he would review the case and be in touch with the planning board and the Department of Environmental Protection to determine the best way to proceed.
Salt Point LLC was contacted for a comment, however, the development’s owners were away on vacation.
The Kasteleins’ lawsuit against the town and the planning board for designating Coastal Dog Inc., a kennel, as an agricultural use not subject to a site plan review, was also discussed. The Kasteleins were scheduled to attend the selectmen’s meeting with their attorney, Tamlyn Frederick. However, they were not present.
In their absence, Dale recapped the Kasteleins’ complaints against Coastal Dog Inc. The Kasteleins filed a suit in Lincoln County Superior Court in October asking the court to overturn the planning board’s designation of Coastal Dog Inc. as an agricultural use. The suit aims to redesignate the kennel as a commercial use, which would require a site plan review.
The Kasteleins filed the suit late. It was submitted to the superior court after the window of opportunity to appeal planning board decisions had closed. Frederick submitted a motion to extend that time period so the superior court would consider the suit. On Nov. 15, that motion was granted by Superior Court Justice Daniel Billings.
Dale’s objection to the motion was not stamped as received by the court until Nov. 16. According to Dale, approval of that motion was a mistake and there is still a possibility that the Superior Court will not consider the suit.
In addition to the lawsuit, the previously resolved issue of noise from the kennel has again resurfaced as an issue. On Dec. 1, the Kasteleins’ attorney sent a memo to Dale requesting that the selectmen order Coastal Dog Inc. to perform noise-analysis tests to determine if noise from the kennel was in violation of town ordinances. Dale said the selectmen could not be forced to take enforcement action. However, he recommended that it may be in their interest to get a quote from a company that performs noise-analysis tests.
“This really isn’t the selectmen’s call,” Selectman Stuart Smith said. “It should be the code enforcement officer’s call.” The selectmen and Dale agreed to leave the matter of noise-analysis tests in the hands of Code Enforcement Officer Marian Anderson.
If the code enforcement officer feels a noise test is necessary, the selectmen decided, they would then determine how to proceed.
