CARRABASSETT VALLEY -– Members of the board of selectmen met last Monday, March 1 and heard from their Code Enforcement Officer, Bill Gilmore, as well as members of the planning board. The town’s selectmen were faced with a planning board recommendation to take enforcement action on what some are calling a “misunderstanding” or a just part of a “learning curve.” The recommendation was to see if the developer of Castle Creek subdivision was in compliance with the development plans which were approved in 2005 and amended in 2006 under a previous ordinance.

According to unofficial and unapproved meeting minutes, the issue had to do with whether basements can be finished off by unit owners and if so was there enough parking spaces. It also had to do with whether tax assessments were up to date for any unit owner who improved their property. And lastly with whether a restrictive covenant was needed, expected or required.

This issue may lead to reconsideration of the way the board reviews, inspects and enforces its permits.

Lloyd Cuttler, the developer, longtime selectman and local businessman, was in his selectman’s seat throughout most of the discussion.

Gilmore said he read a letter to the selectmen that afternoon. “This Subdivision was originally approved on July 28, 2005, with four buildings, and a total of 12 units. An amendment followed on Jan. 6, 2006, reducing the number of buildings to three, and a total of 11 units,” Gilmore wrote.

The issue, whether it was intentional or not, had to do with the units’ basements. It was determined last year that seven of the 11 property owners finished their basement spaces on their own for additional living space. Some planning board members feel that Cuttler was supposed to have put a restrictive covenant into the sale of each unit to limit the basements to what’s called “storage only.”

More specifically, it had to do with a misunderstanding in communication five years ago. There is reference in the June 30, 2005 minutes of one planning board meeting where it states that a covenant would be placed on units sold to restrict basements to storage only. That language and the discussion at the time, Cuttler said, was not representative of the intent of planning board discussions and is taken out of context.

He said that the board’s concern at the time was that the unit owners did not create “breakaway units.” Breakaways were an ongoing issue at that time.

A breakaway is typically part of the original unit that is finished for separate living space and sold or rented as a separate unit. An above ground garage is an ideal footprint for such and there were ongoing issues with that during that time. The town’s own single-family unit permit in itself is protection from breakaways along with the original thought and original plans of constructing shallow basements made this nearly impossible, Cuttler said in a report.

During the construction of the foundations it was determined that the basements could be deeper than anticipated and full eight-foot basement walls were developed and fire suppression equipment was installed. These basements are in full compliance of the life-safety codes and the local ordinance, Gilmore said.

According to meeting notes, Cuttler also explained that the basements have no outside egresses and stairs from the basement lead to the kitchen making a breakaway less than desirable.

Gilmore noted that the planning board still feels that Cuttler made a commitment to the board to restrict basement development.

“Although the finished basements are permissible by both town zoning and local building codes, there is the potential for a lack of parking spaces, should the owners of the remaining unfinished basements seek permits allowing them to do as others already have,” Gilmore said. “The majority of the board feels that they were misled by the developer and wants appropriate action by the board of selectmen.”

Planning board chairman Bruce Miles said last week in a phone conversation that he’d like to not comment on the issue in specifics. He said that the planning board has a purpose and has a job to do. “All I can say is the minutes from the planning board meetings are public records and available to anyone who wants to read them.”

The planning board was operating under the advice of town attorney Donald Fowler.

The attorney said that according to the town’s subdivision ordinance, after a developer gets approval from the board and files the final plan with the Registry of Deeds, no one can transfer any lot in a manner other than depicted on the approved plans or amendments.

Questions and complexities arise when comparing approved minutes verses the final stamped building plans or any conditions, if they exist, that were placed on a preliminary approval or a final permit. As of press-time it is unclear if any such conditions exist.

Other complexities arise due to the fact that Cuttler sold the balance of the common land and building space to an association. He can no longer come back to the board as the property owner.

“This has really been a learning curve for everyone involved,” Gilmore said. This could have been avoided in the past and quite possibly and hopefully in the future, he explained.

Gilmore said he’s been asked to bring a year’s worth of applications to the board at its next meeting so that the planners can look at “what happens after its approval,” he said and how they can improve on their permit process.

According to the meeting notes, Cuttler said, if these types of issues had been surfacing for a while with the planning board, he wished he was formally contacted earlier and before the issue became elevated.

Cuttler, speaking to one concern, went on to explain that the development had plenty of parking and did not suffer from parking restrictions like other mountain developments.

Gilmore said that the complex situation with multiple issues will again come before the selectmen on March 22. According to one meeting attendee, some issues may be solvable and some may not.