Welcome to PinePointBeach.com
Pine Point, Maine Information
E-mail address for this mail group is
Pine-Point-Beach@maine.rr.com
Pine Point, Maine Information
E-mail address for this mail group is
Pine-Point-Beach@maine.rr.com
|
Welcome to PinePointBeach.com Pine Point, Maine Information E-mail address for this mail group is Pine-Point-Beach@maine.rr.com |
Volunteers maintain this website to share news and information about events and issues in Pine Point on behalf of the Residents Group. The Residents Group is an informal group of citizens who become informed of neighorhood issues and take positions on those to present to town officials.
The most recent postings are at the top of the page.
Residents Group Annual Meeting
Thursday, August 21st, 2008 at 6:00 p.m.
New Town Parcel at the Beachwalk
Please bring a lawn chair
Poor Weather Location: Engine 4 Fire Station
You are cordially invited to attend a meeting of the Pine Point Residents Group on Thursday, August 21 at 6:00 at the municipal land abutting the Beachwalk Subdivision. We will have a short business meeting and time for members to view the parcel of land the Town acquired from the Beachwalk. The Town Council has established a committee to make recommendations about the future use of this small but precious parcel along with other issues related to the end of the Pine Point Rd., so any ideas our representative can pass along will be appreciated. We recommend you bring a lawn chair and if the weather is poor we will hold our meeting at the Fire Station.
For the Pine Point Residents Group,
Elaine Richer, Jack Callahan, Sue Perrino, Judy Mushial, John Thurlow, Judy Shirk, Harold Hutchinson
Notice to Group...
To Members of the Pine Point Residents Group and others on the Pine Point Mailing List:
Please join us next Thursday, August 21st at 6:00 for a gathering
of the Residents Group and guests. Location: The new Town land next to the Beachwalk Subdivision across from the Lighthouse motel. Alternative location if poor weather: Engine 4 Fire Station. We apologize for the late notice, but we've been waiting for Town approval of the location.
As you know, we are now in our 4th year of working to promote responsible decision-making by Town officials on matters related to Pine Point. We have had some success, but it appears that we will be entering a fifth year before we're done achieving our goals. We continue to try to build our e-mail list so more and more people can stay informed. While not every person who receives our mailings necessarily agree with our group's position on the issues, at least they are being kept apprised of decisions affecting the neighborhood, and of our editorial views.
A recent example was the sale of a 10,000 square foot lot of town-owned land that was part of Hurd Park. Many people were completely unaware that the Town sold a portion of the Park and many objected. The objections heard most often were the Town's failure to inform the public and seek input. In a very dense area of Town, open space for people to enjoy is at a premium.
That is why we have worked so diligently to see Depot St. reclaimed for public use after years of restrictions and private use there. Furthermore, the sale of public land is a permanent decision, so it deserves public attention.
We have planned this Annual Meeting to update members and other interested citizens on our work this past year, and to let everyone know what will be happening in the next few months regarding issues in Pine Point.
The meeting will be at the new "Town Land" which our Group worked hard to acquire from the developer of the Beachwalk subdivision across from the Lighthouse Motel. We thought everyone might like to see the parcel - now that the boundaries are identified. This small parcel will help maintain views (it was originally planned as a building lot) and will eventually be developed as a Town resource once a newly formed committee makes its recommendations. Our hopes continue that it may someday become part of larger project including Depot St. from King St. to the Beach. We suggest you dress warmly for that famous ocean breeze, but if weather is really poor we will meet at the Fire Station as we have in the past. Also, you may want to bring a lawn chair or blanket for your comfort (the area is now just gravel). The meeting will last about one hour.
____________________________________________________________________________
UPDATES
RESIDENTS GROUP REQUESTED NEW COMMITTEE
Our recent proposal to the Town Council to initiate another study of the Depot Street area was received favorably and the Town Council approved it and ordered its work to begin in September. Elaine Richer and Jack Callahan have agreed to share our group's one representative on the committee by rotating their attendance. We lobbied for an additional representative, but the Council has not yet rules on that. The committee must conclude its work by the end of the year, but likely sooner. The scope of the study includes the proposed rebuilding of the end of the Pine Point Rd. (a small section from East Grand to King Street) including the barricade by the Lighthouse Motel. The Town Engineer designed a rebuilding project last spring and we learned about it two weeks before the summer construction was to commence, so we immediately requested a meeting to get details for you. That very night the Town Manager, apparently sensing "concerns," postponed the project until the committee could make recommendations. Our effort to include Depot St. itself was unsuccessful because the Council felt it would become too large of a project, but the Council did include in the scope of the study the parcel of land at the Beachwalk which now belongs to the citizens of Scarborough. Council members want recommendations on what is to be done with it now; so people don't get used to it being open space and then potentially becoming alarmed later when it takes on some use.
We felt it fitting, therefore, to hold our meeting at this small piece of public property so we can show you what it is and what it may someday become, and to celebrate our success at lobbying for it. To find it, simply go to the entrance to Claudia Way at the Beachwalk across from the Lighthouse Inn, and the travel easement to it and the parcel will be marked.
Please respect the private property of the Beachwalk residents which includes their private road, by staying on public property. We hope to have some markings put in place.
If it rains we will meet at the Fire Station.
The meeting is: THURSDAY, AUGUST 21st at 6:00 at the Town Parcel (Fire
Station if raining)
____________________________________________________________________________
AGENDA
AGENDA:
(You are invited to review the archives of the issues over the past three
and a half years at www.pinepointbeach.com )
Jack Callahan: Welcome and showcase the parcel and how it came about.
John Thurlow: Reports on various issues
Judy Shirk: membership drive
ACTION FOR GROUP
1. Approve Sue Perrino, Judy Mushial and Elaine Richer as additional representatives of the group (and any others nominated and willing to join the leadership team)
2. Approve Elaine and Jack to serve on the Town Council's committee
3. Reaffirm our previous positions on the issues of:
The Barricade on Depot Street, the proposed Land Swap between the Town and Lighthouse Motel, Access to Depot Street
4. Consider and approve changing our group's name to "Pine Point
Residents Association" because of the continuing and apparently
unavoidable confusion over the years. There is no Pine Point Association; it is now called "The Friends of Pine Point" and it is a social and community service group." Changing our name will hopefully avoid misunderstandings.
5. Taxes - looming revaluation: consider establishing a committee to study Pine Point's tax base and the impact of new development on values during the next revaluation.
6. Rights of Way: several members have asked that we study the rights of way throughout Pine Point due to some misunderstanding of which are public, for example, you might remember people asking about Dunefield Lane across from Avenue Three. The town, we learned, put up a sign stating "No Beach Access"
and we were asked to look into it. We learned that Dunefield is a public road which connects directly to a fifty foot Town Right of Way known as Avenue 4 Extension (a path which runs parallel to the Municipal Parking Lot at Hurd Park). This is an example, then, of the Town making an error when it installed a sign essentially restricting access. We will propose another committee to look into Easements and rights-of-way in Pine Point.
7. Report on Speed Issues and establish a team to explore speed tables or other alternatives to make Pine Point safer
8. New Pier status: report on engineering and funding
9. Report on the condotel status and legal action opportunities
10. The "Fence" abutting the Town parcel erected by the owners of the Lighthouse Inn 10. Ideas from Group member for the use of this parcel for the representatives to bring to the Town Council committee
11. Comments about the road reconstruction plan mentioned above for the representatives to bring to the Town Council committee
12. Any other ideas from the Group; issues affecting Pine Point (Ron Owens retirement and his replacement, Three Town Council seats open and our need for a candidate from Pine Point. The deadline for filing nomination papers is September 3rd. ONLY 25 signatures are required, so if anyone is interested, please get your forms from Town Hall and you may get all you need that night!
13. Member issues
14. A Group photo at the New Town Land
Membership Drive: please make sure we have your email address and anyone's you know who might want to be added. We'd like to build our membership.
Town Council Approves Residents Group Request for a Study
June 18, 2008
A Prepared Motion on the Council's Agenda Excluded Several Areas of Study the PPRG Wanted to See Examined
Residents Group Leaders Presented Proposed Amendments to the Motion and an Aerial Map
Town Council Concurs with Most Items, Wants to Keep Study Focussed
Council Chair Suggests Facilitator be Retained, Council AgreesThe Town Council June 18th heard Residents Group leaders Judy Shirk, Sue Perrino and Harold Hutchinson present suggestions as a follow-up to our proposal to reinitiate the study of the Depot Street area that was terminated two years ago. This proposal came as a result of a plan to "reconstruct" the Pine Point Rd. from Jones Creek Drive to King St. The plan, drawn by Town Engineer Jim Wendell, called for yet another modification (not removal) of the barricade to the public road known as Depot St. which runs from King St to the beach. It also meant summer construction, appeared to be a substantial project, and the public had not received sufficient notice.
The Council amended the prepared motion by reviewing our items, and voted to have a longer study period (to November 5th), they will hire a facilitator to keep the work focussed, will hold all meetings in the Council chamber so the public can attend, will keep minutes and publish them on the Town website. t Council also removed the restriction in the prepared motion that would NOT allow the committee to consider removal of the barricade.
Several Councilors spoke in favor of the study including public access to the Town parcel surrounded by Claudia Way. It was clear from their comments that the Town needs to determine the use of the parcel soon so residents of the new subdivision get used to it as is. That was one of our group's strongest proposals.
While we were very pleased with the Council's support and their complimentary statements about our Group, we had hoped to get more representation on the Committee. We had proposed four residents, but they chose one. Their concerns were that the committee would become too large to work efficiently. They may reconsider the composition at their July meeting. We also had hoped that the Committee could begin meeting this summer so they could decide how to gather traffic and use information to be used in the fall. Again, they may take action on doing some sort of data gathering at their July meeting. The last Council Committee spent much time on design plans for Depot Street and four designs were done for that area by the Town's traffic engineers. Also, the landscape architect for the Beachwalk subdivision created a concept plan for Depot St. We would like the committee to look at those plans and include Depot. St. in the scope, particularly because any modifications to the end of the Pine Point Rd. are likely to affect Depot St. Finally, the drainage concerns Mr. Wendell was trying to address did not include sigificant water issues on King Street by the fire station. We had hoped that area would be included, but the Council narrowed the study area. They did say that nothing would prevent the Council from expanding the scope in the future.
So all in all it was good news for the Group. The Council clearly respects our input and recognizes the frustrations we've endured.
Click Here for a Copy of the Residents Group's Follow-up Proposal and Map
Click Here for Article in Forecaster June 19, 2008 (available soon)
Click Here for Residents Group Leaders' Response (available soon)
Town Manager Will Not Put Group's Request to Present a Proposal to Council.
Council Chair Overrules, Item is on June 18, 2008 Agenda
Group Leaders Will Request that the Previous Council Committee which never concluded it work reconvene to consider many unresolved issues, including the new issue which is documented below.
Please Click here to Read The Group's Letter to the Council
sent after the
Town Manager would not place our Group's request on the June 2, 2008 agenda
The Proposal is included within this document
TOWN MANAGER AUTHORIZED SUMMER ROAD CONSTRUCTION BY TOWN AT BEACHWALK
RESIDENTS GROUP LEADERS RESPOND
E-mail exchanges
__________________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ron Owens [mailto:ROwens@ci.scarborough.me.us]
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 2:18 PM
To: pine-point-beach@maine.rr.com
Cc: Jim Wendel
Subject: FW: Pine Pt Reconstruction-Curb Matching, The Lighthouse MotelJohn, et al,
PW will be doing so work on Pine Point Road this Spring to both address some problems and to improve that section of roadway in coordination with the Beachwalk Subdivision. Jim is recommending a slight redesign of the entrance to Depot Street rounding out some of the edges and increasing its functionality. I thought you might like to see the recommended design and offer any comments. It would be helpful if you could respond by May 14th. If you have any specific questions with the design you can contact Jim directly.
Thanks,
Ron Owens
Town of Scarborough
207 730-4031
__________________________________________________________________________________________
-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Wendel
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 2:01 PM
To: Ron Owens
Cc: Mike Shaw
Subject: Pine Pt Reconstuction-Curb Matching, The Lighthouse MotelRon-Attached is my sketch and a memo discussing why and what I am trying to achieve.
James T. Wendel, PE Town Engineer 207-730-4043 phone 207-730-4046 fax
Here is a sketch of the Wendell Plan
__________________________________________________________________________________________
From: Pine Point Residents Group [mailto:Pine-Point-Beach@maine.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:42 AM
To: 'Ron Owens'
Subject: RE: Pine Pt Reconstruction-Curb Matching, The Lighthouse MotelMr. Owens:
Thank you for your mail below dated May 8th. We have read Jim Wendel’s memo and examined the sketch but do not have a full understanding of what is planned there. In all honesty it is a bit technical so we have not forwarded it to the full group until we can get clarification. Would it be possible for some of our representatives to meet and learn more? Also, when you designed the replacement barrier your Public Works Dept. was able to create a rendering of what is planned which was a valuable visual.
We are naturally surprised that any change is contemplated for the area where the barricades once stood in the public road since this was finally resolved after a long and contentious process. You will recall that you told the motel owners two years ago to cease putting up the orange barrels in the street as they had for 16 years. You then had Public Works install a permanent year-round barricade (you referred to as a “raised berm” which our group objected to and judged to me more restrictive to public access that the barrels were. Furthermore we believed that it gave more of an impression that the road was motel property, which has been our long-standing contention. We asked the Council to become involved and they ordered a substantial portion of the barricade removed to the satisfaction of most. We certainly hope that a fourth design to restrict public access to that street and the beach is not contemplated. A comprehensive history of this important neighborhood issue (and a slide presentation) is available on our Group’s website at www.pinepointbeach.com for any recipient of this email to review (scroll down to locate the barricade issues and media reports from 2006).
When do you anticipate beginning this work?
Will there be a public hearing or neighborhood gathering prior to the design being finalized? We always disclaim that we do not represent all residents of Pine Point, only those who have joined in our efforts to lobby for various policies. We have approximately 90 members. All voices should be heard.
Has the press been informed? Any issue surrounding the Lighthouse Inn/Condominiums brings on controversy, and this may be particularly true following the April 2nd Council Meeting when the “Change of Use” position by the Town on the “Condotel” was officially reversed to the strong objection of our group. You surely will understand that any projects done there have the potential to upset residents.
We will repeat our positions on this for you to consider:
- Any decisions made should be fully disclosed and proposed to the Council and public input allowed.
- The process should not be rushed. Your email indicated “PW will be doing … work on Pine Point Road this Spring” which ends in just a few weeks.
- Insure that the 300 foot end of the road is clearly a public access area for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians and is safe for all, including motel guests. The compromise the Council reached in the fall of 2006 by ordering the reduction of the curbing satisfied the group to some extent.
- Take necessary measures to eliminate the de facto privatization of the road for use by the motel
- Take measures to end the ongoing private uses of the public way for motel activities such as guests’ children playing in the street, guests loading and unloading cars, RV’s, etc., by backing up to the rooms in the street, owners attempts to stop motorists from using the road (the 4th of July is one example where the owners try to restrict access), motel maintenance van consistently parking illegally alongside the motel, etc.
- Provide for and encourage, through signage and road markings, handicap access and parking at the end of the street. There is no handicap parking at the ocean in Pine Point.
- Provide for a safe turnaround such as a hammerhead at the end of the street.
- Require removal of the stone wall the owners constructed in the public way at a dangerous curve. This structure differs from the normal shrubbery found on most house lots which are in the public way due to its immense size, permanence and unsafe location. We disagree with your position that this structure can remain there because if you had it removed you would have to require others to remove their vegetation or fencing.
As far as the Beachwalk subdivision is concerned, the developer Paul Hollis agreed at the Planning Board (see meeting tape and minutes of 10/6/2006) to install a five foot wide, granite curbed sidewalk from the intersection of East Grand Ave. and the Pine Point Rd. to Claudia Way. We wonder if that is still going to happen or if the Town is undertaking that part of his project? If so, at what cost and will the new developer(s) be reimbursing the Town?
You committed to us that appropriate signage would be installed at the easement/entrance to the Town-owned property surrounded by Claudia Way for at least two purposes; to ensure that the Beachwalk homeowners understand that this 3200 SF parcel is public property and therefore can be accessed by the public, and secondly so the public recognizes it as such. That land was deeded to the Town so Mr. Hollis could take advantage of Section VII of the ordinance for some relief of standards. We remain anxious to know what the Town intends to do and when. If a plan is being developed in conjunction with the Beachwalk, then perhaps that parcel and access to it should be part of the plan. The Planning Board required that a plan be developed by Hollis and approved by the Town.
We continue to believe that the safety issues which exist in this area (which Mr. Wendell references is his memo) is sufficient cause for the Town to give very serious consideration to erecting a fence along the motel side of the street for the protection of guests and to end the unsafe private use of the street. You indicated in your report to the Council of April 2nd that public safety would be the justification for the Town to install a fence there. We encourage the fence be included in the design process. The fence should be identical to the one erected by the owners on the opposite side of the road and that would help ameliorate, as we stated, the privatization issues as well as safety ones. If this is included in a plan, it may also bring the owners back to the table to work with the Town and Residents since a fence in front of their motel/condos would likely cause them similar consternation as their fence has caused a great many residents whose public ocean vistas were lost.
Thank you once again for informing our group. We look forward to your response.
Judy Shirk, Harold Hutchinson, Sue Perrino, John Thurlow, Jack Callahan, Elaine Richer
Representatives of the Residents Group__________________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ron Owens [mailto:ROwens@ci.scarborough.me.us]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 9:50 AM
To: Pine Point Residents Group
Cc: Jim Wendel
Subject: RE: Pine Pt Reconstruction-Curb Matching, The Lighthouse MotelJohn,
I suggest you contact Jim Wendel to discuss his proposed plan. The road is going to be reconstructed in the next few weeks along with the work required by Beachwalk. Jim has proposed a slight redesign of the intersection with Depot to help it blend in with the reconstruction work that is going to be done. I suggest you meet with Jim to understand his design. The changes are minimal but mainly blend the existing configuration into the new entrance to Claudia and provide access and install the sidewalk.
Ron
Ron Owens
Town of Scarborough
207 730-4031__________________________________________________________________________________________
From: Pine Point Residents Group [mailto:Pine-Point-Beach@maine.rr.com]
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 8:25 AM
To: jwendel@ci.scarborough.me.us; Mike Shaw
Subject: Pine Point Rd. King Street WorkDear Mr. Wendel and Mr. Shaw:
Could a group of Pine Point residents meet with you to learn more about the plan designed for road changes in Pine Point at the Beachwalk subdivision. We would like to propose this Wednesday, 5/21 at 3:45 at Town Hall or the site if that is more convenient.
Thank you for your consideration.
For the Resident Group
Judy Shirk
Harold Hutchinson
John Thurlow
Jack Callahan
Elaine Richard
Sue Perrino__________________________________________________________________________________________
From: Jim Wendel [mailto:JWendel@ci.scarborough.me.us]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 9:59 AM
To: Pine Point Residents Group; Mike Shaw
Subject: RE: Pine Point Rd. King Street WorkNeighborhood Group-Yes, the mtg is on in the Town Managers Conference room.
James T. Wendel, PE Town Engineer 207-730-4043 phone 207-730-4046 fax__________________________________________________________________________________________
From: Pine Point Residents Group [mailto:Pine-Point-Beach@maine.rr.com]
Sent: Wed 5/21/2008 8:06 AM
To: 'Pine Point Residents Group'; Jim Wendel; Mike Shaw
Subject: RE: Pine Point Rd. King Street Work
Dear Mr. Wendell,
Are you available to meet this afternoon at 3:45 (or later in the afternoon) at Town Hall with representatives from the Pine Point Residents Group concerning the matter below?
Thank you
Judy, Jack, John, Elaine, Susan, Harold
Residents Group Representatives__________________________________________________________________________________________
May 21, 2008 Meeting
Representatives of the Residents Group met with Jim Wendell and Mike Shaw (Director of Public Works) and asked questions about the road project at the Beachwalk. We stated repeatedly that we were not there to criticize their plans but to ask questions to inform the neighborhood. We told them that any action on our part was no reflection on them and that they may very well have a good plan, but we needed details.
We saw the Town manager in the parking lot after our meeting. He was on his way home to "get some dinner" before that night's Town Council meeting. We thanked him for his staff's time. He didn't mention that the project was on that night's agenda.
That evening, he gave his report and stated:
“as you might expect we’ve not been able to reach any kind of consensus or buy in on any of the improvements…”
This phrase "as you might expect" was unnecessary, but worse was the absolute untruth he told to the Council. Below is our response.
When we reviewed the details of the plan and talked with abutters, it was clearly a significant project and would be very disruptive. There were also many more unanswered questions and no public involvement (other than what we asked for).
__________________________________________________________________________________________
From: Pine Point Residents Group [mailto:Pine-Point-Beach@maine.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 8:51 AM
To: 'Pine Point Residents Group'
Subject: RE: Pine Pt Reconstruction-Curb Matching, The Lighthouse Motel
Importance: HighMr. Owens,
We were surprised to hear you state in your Manager’s report last evening that the project in Pine Point would not be done because
“as you might expect we’ve not been able to reach any kind of consensus or buy in on any of the improvements…”
Members of our group met with Mr. Wendel and Mr. Shaw yesterday from 3:45 – 4:50. The purpose of the meeting, as you suggested below, was to gather information. We replied to your first mailing that the sketch you sent earlier was unclear and technical and requested the meeting.
The meeting was very productive and helpful. We left there with much more information to convey to the neighbors. We had NO position on the plan, naturally, because we did not have all of the information. There were concerns we had QUESTIONS about.
Several neighbors saw you in the parking lot at 5:00 p.m. and thanked you for your staff’s time. You said you were going home for dinner before the Council meeting. We had no conversation about the plan with you.We did not know it was on the agenda for that evening, but learned it from a Town Council member before the meeting. We were surprised once again. We asked the Councilors that it be stated that our group would appreciate some time to ask questions and share the information with others. Unfortunately we had very little notice about this project, which we did not perceive as a “slight” project.
Your statements to the Council about” consensus or buy in” are absolutely untrue and how you reached such a conclusion within an hour or two of our meeting with your staff is difficult to understand, particularly since we have had no conversation with you.
As we always have, we seek information, inform our group and take positions on issues relevant to Pine Point. The information gathering had just begun.
Please explain why you stated what you did to our elected officials.
We would like to formally request this matter be placed on the agenda for the next Council meeting and that the plan as proposed be presented to the Council. They authorized the barricade at Depot Street in 2006 and its alteration a few months later. This plan did alter that once again, so Council action is certainly an expectation. We also feel the public should have ample opportunity to respond to a plan such as this. To simply scrap a plan without presenting it publicly is not much different from creating it without public notification and involvement. As you know, it called for construction of the arguably busiest road in Pine Point after Memorial Day. If this plan is in the budget for FY 07 then we assume it has been planned for some time. We just learned of it.
We were interested to hear you talk about meeting with residents who are affected by the Dunstan Sidewalk plan. The neighborhood meetings about the rebuilding of Jasper Street were helpful. The Black Point Park meetings apparently made a difference. That is good policy.
Judy Shirk, Harold Hutchinson, Sue Perrino, John Thurlow, Jack Callahan, Elaine Richer
Representatives of the Residents Group__________________________________________________________________________________________
From: Ron Owens [mailto:ROwens@ci.scarborough.me.us]
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 10:43 AM
To: Pine Point Residents Group
Cc: Carol Rancourt ; Chris Vaniotis ; ContactMesser; Judy Roy ; Michael Wood; Mike Wood ; Richard Sullivan ; Ron Ahlquist; Sylvia Most ; Tody Justice; Callahan, Jack & Janet ; Elaine Richer; Harold Hutchinson; john@thurlow.com; Shirk, Judy ; Sue Perrino ; Jim Wendel; Mike Shaw
Subject: RE: Pine Pt Reconstruction-Curb Matching, The Lighthouse MotelJohn,
The decision not to move forward this Spring results from Mike Shaw reporting that there was no consensus on the proposed improvements and that the association would not be meeting until the second week of June which means that it would be too late to do any work this Spring. This will give everyone the summer to think about the plan and come to some consensus on how to move forward. If we have agreed to a course of action by the end of the summer then we can consider making some improvements after Labor Day. Probably most of the abutters to the Street would prefer that anyway.
What was scheduled initially were a grinding and resurfacing of the road during May/June that would take 2 to 3 days but we also thought this would be an opportunity to make some needed improvements. Obviously it will take longer to build a consensus on some the suggested improvements by the Town Engineer than the next two weeks, so it only makes sense to defer any street improvements until the Association, Public Works and Engineering have reached agreement on a plan for the area. The Council would only be involved in approving the other improvements because it would require spending more than Public Works has allocated for maintenance of the street. I will not present any plan for those other improvements until there is an agreement with the association on a plan.
Ron
Ron Owens
Town of Scarborough
207 730-4031__________________________________________________________________________________________
The leaders of the Group met and decided to go directly to the Council. We talked with individual Council members and wrote the letter that appears above.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Town Administration Submits Report to Council
Lighthouse Condos:
Residents Group Responds
Resident Group representatives receive 111 page Report One Day Before April 2nd Council Meeting
Resident Group Members Read Document and Craft Responses During the next 24 hours
Town Manager Summarizes Report at Council Meeting (4/2)
5 of 6 Council Members (Wood absent) Comment after Residents Group Members Read Statements: All Regretting Outcome, Appear No Further Action Forthcoming
Residents Group members are urged to review these documents and send their comments to the mail list.
We will need to determine the next steps we wish to take, if any.
Click Here to Read the 111 Page Report (much of which are attachments)
Click Here to Read Residents Group Members Statements in Response to Report and Press Release
Click Here to Read Article in the Forecaster April 4 2008 (after Council meeting)
Click Here to Read Article in the Current April 3, 2008 (prior to report being issued)
Town Administration Approves Lighthouse Motel Condo Conversion
Public Not Informed Despite 3-year Debate and Pending Ordinance -
Resident Group Member Discovers Town's Decision By Chance
Group's Representatives Request Formal Investigation by the Town Council
No Action in Past 6 Months on "Condotel Ordinance" Draft Tabled by the Town Council on September 5, 2007
What follows is e-mail correspondence concerning this latest development, and a comprehensive list of questions the
Representative of the Residents Group sent to the Town. The questions may give you a sense of what some of
the scenarios might be should this be allowed to happen.
To read the questions first
Click Here
March 16, 2008
By E-mail to 144 recipients
To members of the Pine Point Residents Group and others on the Pine Point Mailing List:Attached is a PDF file of our research and questions for the Town concerning its unexpected reversal on the Condotel issue. As you know, the Town Council has been working on an ordinance to regulate these conversions for over a year. The new ordinance would have formalized the Town’s policy that these conversions are, indeed, a “Change of Use” of non-conforming motels and would require Town approval(s). The last Town Council action on this matter was to table it and refer it back to the Ordinance Committee of the Council.
In the interim, two lodging places in Pine Point went through the Zoning Board process and received approvals to convert. They essentially honored the existing rules and the Town’s position that they needed approval. Their presentations were well-received.
The Lighthouse Motel went through no such process, but filed their condo declarations at the Registry despite the Town’s policy. So the Town filed a notice in the Registry of Deeds to essentially prevent any sales of condos at that location.
The new ordinance draft is still unfinished after a year, yet the Town Manager (we learned quite by accident) reversed the Town’s position last month based on a few changes to the Lighthouse Motel’s Condo documents. He wrote:
Ron Owens, Town Manager
February 7, 2008The Trumans are revising their declarations to be clear that the motel will continue to operate as seasonal motel and that there will be no change of use, which is the only issue on which the town could regulate. The Town cannot regulate the form of ownership but we had argued that would they proposed and filed in the condo declarations was essentially a change of use in that it was unclear that motel would continue to operate as a motel...
This was unacceptable to us. It was not a Town Council decision, but was made at the administrative level. We reviewed the revisions the owners made and found nothing to protect the public from an unregulated conversion of this motel into 22 condos on 1/3 (one-third) acre of land. The land/road exchange, remaining barricade, stockade fence and other issues were also not addressed.
We replied to Mr. Owens and he replied in turn:
FROM: Ron Owens
February 11, 2008 3:54 PM
To: Pine Point Residents GroupDespite all the rhetoric, the Lighthouse will continue to operate as a motel subject to the town’s ordinances and permits on a seasonal basis, the only difference is that the individual rooms can be individually owned motel rooms. The use remains the same and still subject to the same restrictions as a non-conforming building. The Trumans had a series of options they could have chosen but what they choose was to structure their venture so that the town would not have a viable legal argument to classify their plan as a change of use. It is not perfect and it is not what we would have preferred but legally, when they changed their declarations, the town lost its option to prevent the change in ownership. It is not the outcome we had hoped to achieve.
As you know we have spent many hours on this issue to first replace the building with a very attractive structure and relocate the roadway to provide better access to the beach and when that option was withdrawn by the owners, we attempted to find ways to encourage them to address the issues of beach access along the lines of what you and your members wanted but then again it was dependent on the exercise of a controversial legal strategy that change of ownership and unlimited use of the units equaled a change in use under the zoning ordinance. When the owner decided to revise their declarations to restrict the use to a seasonal motel, we arrived at the end of our ability to change or affect the situation. It is easy to try to assess blame for the final outcome but a different outcome required the cooperation and compromise of everyone involved but that always alluded this process and every party shares in that failure to some degree.
In the end, the possibility of 22 owners means that change in conditions are probably unlikely in the short term but then as these owners become more invested in their neighborhood, there will probably be new opportunities to incorporate the Lighthouse Inn into the fabric of the neighborhood. Eventually the Trumans will become less and less a part of the motel which challenges your association to reach out to the new owners to help them become the neighbors you want them to be.
I know you feel that perhaps I have let your association down but I can assure you I have tried diligently to convince all parties that we needed a different outcome and I thought the first proposal was the best for the town and the neighborhood but we missed that opportunity. In the end we all constrained by what the law allows us to do and the application of law has to be fair, objective and without prejudice to either party.
Ron
Ron Owens
As you know we immediately called for a formal investigation by the Town Council. Chairman Messer responded with a request to Ron Owens for a summary report and answers to our group’s questions concerning this latest development. Councilor Most, Chair of the Ordinance Committee concurred, and Councilor Rancourt responded. They wrote:
_______________________________________
Jeffrey Messer
Saturday, February 16, 2008 1:44 PM
Pine Point Residents Group,
I have forwarded this request on to the Town Manager with a request that the entire Town Council be copied. Quite frankly, it should have been sent to the entire Town Council all along rather than select individual members based on the voluminous nature of the email, as well as the content.
After speaking with Councilor Most to determine the best course of action, I'm formally requesting (via this email) that the Town Manager provide a report on the questions raised within your email and a summary of events concerning this issue. I respectfully request that this report be made available to the Town Council a few days in advance of our first meeting in March (3/5/08). Due to the holiday on Monday, as well as school vacation week making some folks unavailable to have input to the report, I believe giving staff a couple of weeks to gather information would yield a more comprehensive report. I would also ask that the Town Manager make this report available to your group by close of business on March 3.
Jeff Messer
Chairman, Scarborough Town Council
_______________________________________
FROM: Sylvia Most
February 16, 2008 5:46 PM
Pine Point Residents Group –
Chairman Messer and I discussed your request and I fully concur with his approach outlined below. We hope that this will provide a timely response to your questions.
Sincerely,
Sylvia_______________________________________
FROM: Carol S Rancourt
February 16, 2008 7:03 PM
Pine-Point-Beach@maine.rr.com
I am going to ask for a public review of this issue from the Town's attorney.Carol
Councilor Judy Roy also called and spent an hour on the phone to learn more. She was elected to the Council last November but had served on the Council for many years before.
The following are the exchanges between the Town and Representatives of the Residents Group:
The Town Manager then responded to Chairman Messer:
FROM: Ron Owens
February 19, 2008 10:27 AM
TO: Pine-point-beach@maine.rr.com
Cc: Jeffrey Messer; sylviam@maine.rr.com; Sylvia Most; Carol Rancourt; Jeff Messer; Judy Roy; Richard Sullivan; Tody Justice; Michael Wood; Ronald Ahlquist
Subject: RE: ~~ Request for Response ~~I initially responded to your primary concern and I do intend to fully respond to your questions but last week was a very busy week. However, before I respond I need to clearly understand what you are asking so I can respond appropriately to you and the Council. It would be helpful if you would provide me with a concise listing of the just the questions contained in your email. This will not only make it easier to craft an appropriate response but insure that all your questions get answered.
Ron
Ron Owens
We outlined 19 specific questions in our original mail, but we replied:
FROM: Pine Point Residents Group
February 19, 2008 10:53 PM
Mr. OwensThank you for your mail.
We will summarize our correspondence in the form of questions as you requested.
Please address your messages to our group or all five representatives, if you would.Jack Callahan, Harold Hutchinson, Elaine Richer, John Thurlow, Judy Shirk
Representatives
We did some further research and expanded on those 19 questions with the document attached to this e-mail. This was our cover message:
To: Council Chairman Messer and Members of the Town Council
From: Representatives of the Residents Group, Pine Point
Harold Hutchinson, Jack Callahan, Judy Shirk, Elaine Richer, John Thurlow
Date: February 25, 2008
Reg: Town approval for the Lighthouse Motel to sell 22 condominium unitsThank you Chairman Messer for your response to our request for a formal investigation into what we perceive as significant irregularities in the approval process regarding the Lighthouse Motel’s conversion to 22 condominiums
Mr. Owens requested on February 19th that we provide a “…concise listing of the just the questions contained in [your] email.” Those are itemized in the attached document and include support information for his convenience. There is a PDF version and a Word version attached. Some image may require you to enlarge the view setting.
We look forward to the report and thank you once again for being so responsive.
This received Chairman Messer’s reply:
From: Jeffrey Messer
February 28, 2008 11:14 AM
Pine Point Residents Group; 'Ron Owens'
Due the amount of information being requested and the limited time available to provide answers, the original time line I suggested will not be adequate for the Town Manager to prepare his response. With other higher priority concerns, such as the compilation of the budget, needing immediate attention, the date of March 30 will now be the date for public release of the report. It's possible it may be done before then. If it is then you can expect it to be released to you at that time.
Regards,
Jeff
And ours:
Pine Point Residents Group
February 29, 2008 9:35 PM
Jeffrey Messer; Ron Owens
Chairman Messer,Thank you very much. We fully understand.
Harold Hutchinson, Jack Callahan, Judy Shirk, John Thurlow, Elaine Richer
So we anxiously await a reply. We hope the Town Council will give this matter the time it deserves so the effort of so many during these past three years will not have been for nothing, and so a dangerous precedent will not be set.
Please try to find the time to read our questions. They will give you a sense of the importance of the next step in this process.
Judy, John, Hutch, Elaine, Jack
Click Here for PDF file of the QUESTIONS SENT TO TOWN MANAGER
Town Manager to Retire This Fall
Town Manager Ron Owens
Mr. Owens acknowledges his upcoming retirement this fall in recent articles in the local paper, March 2008.
Resident Group Representatives Respond to Press Inquiries
A Timeline is provided for background
PRESS RELEASE: From the Pine Point Residents Group, Scarborough
DATE: March 26, 2008
REGARDING: Lighthouse Inn Condominiums
In response to requests by local reporters, we have summarized the timeline and issues concerning the Town’s reversal of its position on the condotel conversion of the Lighthouse Motel. I am one of five representatives of the Residents Group. You may attribute these comments to me, the five representatives or the group. If you have further questions, please call and I will take them down and get replies to you as soon as possible. More detailed information and history are available at www.pinepointbeach.com.
Judy Shirk
Avenue Three, Pine Point
883-9400Representatives
Judy Shirk
Harold Hutchinson
John Thurlow
Elaine Richer
Jack Callahan
STATEMENT
The Residents Group, neighborhood, and community were not informed of the abrupt change in the Town's previously strong position that conversion of the Motel was a "change of use." We have worked with the Town administration for 3 years on this issue. The residents should have been informed or a public notice made.
We disagree with the Town Manager's new position that "nothing will change there, just the ownership, which the Town can't regulate," That was not true all last year. The Manager even filed a warning in the Registry of Deeds alerting any buyer of the condos of the Town's ordinances. Mr. Owens stated that they have modified their declaration to his satisfaction. Our research, however, is different, the owners did NOT strengthen their condo declarations, they weakened them. The Town will have no enforcement ability over what happens there. A little over one paragraph was changed from the original condo documents. And these can be modified by the Condo Association without Town approval. The Council, as part of an investigation, should ensure that the changes made to these declarations are examined carefully because there is no evidence that they have been strengthened.
It is unreasonable to accept the claim that this operation will continue to be a seasonal motel as the Town Manager indicates in his responses. Once the 22 units are sold, owners will choose to rent long term or allow friends and relatives to use the units, or leave them vacant. They will not be fully available to the traveling public as the declarations indicate and the Town Manager accepts. There is no way of determining the extent to which it remains available to the public without the Town accessing the condotel's records consistently.
The language in their condo declaration amendment indicates that owners will not be allowed to put in kitchens. Kitchens are defined in the amended declaration as a cook top and oven, nothing more. There is no question that owners of these units will equip them with kitchens and it will be unenforceable by the Town. Kitchens clearly create a "change of use." They create a "dwelling." And they present a life safety hazard that the structure is not at present equipped for properly. This facility is old, has no sprinkler system, no pull stations, no fire escapes, no egress windows, outdated electrical systems, asbestos sheathing, and no inter-connected smoke alarms wired to an alarm service. To permit this change of use is to ignore a significant risk to personal safety.
Most upgrades at this facility need to be done building-wide and there are many. Individual owners will not be able to upgrade on their own nor will they be motivated to share substantial costs to upgrade common areas. Furthermore, it may take some time for all units to be sold, delaying the upgrades necessary under the Town ordinance for the protection of life.
Two other non-conforming lodging places in Pine Point went to the Zoning Board for approval to convert to condos last year. The Lighthouse should also be required to. Ownership issues aside, common sense must prevail along with a correct interpretation of the ordinance and case law. These dwellings will undeniably be a change of use from what the Motel has done for decades. The law requires a process of approval so some conditions can be applied and enforcement made possible.
The Town Council has been involved in this for three years, ever since the owners asked for the Town's help for first 5 condo plan. We do not believe that this should now become an administrative decision, made without public notice or input. The Town Manager does not have the authority, in our view, to make this decision and the Town Council should investigate the irregularities we have pointed out in our submission to them. At the very least, an objective legal opinion by another firm should be sought.
Ownership can take different forms. If the owner's of the motel chose to take on 30 partners or create a corporation and issue shares, there would be little objection. But the change of ownership they propose is far different and it presents a host of complications for regulation. We disagree with the Town Manager that this form of ownership has nothing to do with land use as he stated.
The bottom line is density. To permit a non-conforming motel on 1/3 acre of land to become 22 dwellings would create a housing density that is outrageous by today's standards. When compared to single family homes nearby, this tiny parcel of land will have as many dwellings as all of King Street up to Dunefield Lane.
For more detailed positions, history and details, including correspondence and photos, please visit the Resident Group's website at www.pinepointbeach.com
BACKGROUND FACTS and TIMELINE
• The Lighthouse Motel is a 22 room motel on 1/3 of an acre. It is a seriously non-conforming use in the residential zone. It has 18 inches frontage where it abuts the Pine Point Rd. (Also known as Depot St.) The motel has an off-site parking strip 22 feet wide. The facility falls in the Shoreland Zone which requires approvals for alterations or expansions.
• The Town public road is between the motel and its parking strip. Barricades have been placed in the road at the intersection of King Street for over 15 years resulting in the appearance of the road as private property of the motel. Guests of the motel and the owners routinely use the public road for loading and unloading, recreation, maintenance, etc.
• Neighbors have expressed strong interest in reclaiming this stretch of the road for public use and shore access, and to design an attractive and accessible turnaround and handicap parking at the shore.
• The developer, as part of his subdivision plan known as "Beachwalk" (on the land adjacent to the motel parking) has donated land to the Town for this purpose.
• A land exchange proposal was discussed with the motel owners and Town Council in December of 2004 which contemplated moving the motel parking strip and road giving the motel frontage. This would facilitate the owners’ expansion plans.
• The owners of the motel proposed to convert to condominiums in March of 2005 and applied to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Zoning Board did not grant approval.
• Residents became alarmed when they learned about the plan and the Town’s potential willingness to assist the owners in their expansion without a tangible benefit to the Town. Given the serious non-conformity of the property, its position next to a public street, the barricades, shoreland zone and others factors, the Residents Group formed to lobby the Council for careful study before making any concessions to the owners.
• The Zoning Board rejected the owners’ plan and urged them to work with their neighbors. Their architect held four community forums over the summer to get public input. Ultimately, the Residents Group and many other neighbors SUPPORTED the owners’ plan for FIVE luxury condominiums at the Lighthouse Motel. It would have clearly been more conforming to the residential zone and a nice addition to the neighborhood. There were several benefits of the plan but also unresolved issues and incomplete negotiations.
• At the request of the Residents Group in August of 2005, the Town Council created a Special Committee of all parties to discuss the unresolved matters and study plans for a possible new road design.
• After eight months of meetings, the owners indicated that 5 luxury units were not sufficiently profitable so they withdrew their "Plan D" (5 condos) and stated that they wanted to add units back in the plan. The owners’ lawyer wrote to the Town and indicated they would no longer be participating. The Town Manager disbanded the Council committee. No minutes of any meetings were recorded and no public report was made at the end of the study, although a great deal of work was done.
• In April and May of 2006 the Town modified the barricade on Depot Street by constructing a permanent, paved, larger barricade. Residents Group members strongly objected since it was their goal to have the barricades removed completely. On June 7th the Town Council approved the plan, although the new barricade was already under construction. The Residents Group representatives were not aware that it would be a Council action item, or they would have presented concerns to them directly. It was not posted on the agenda until two days before the Council meeting.
• After presenting its views to the Town Council, the Residents Group observed the Council deliberation during which Council Chair Steve Ross presented his recommendation that the barricade be removed from the public street. He explained the historical basis for his recommendation based on research he had done back to 1875 which indicated that the street extends to the Atlantic Ocean. He also stated his belief that it should not be public policy to barricade a public road
• The Council votes to remove most of the new barricade on October 4, 2006. It was removed the next day.
• The Residents Group worked with the Town for the next two years on matters concerning the road, such as the barricade mentioned above. A developer purchased the owners’ vacant lot across the street adjacent to the motel's parking strip and proposed a nine-lot subdivision there. The Residents Group worked with the Town and the developer and ultimately endorsed the project after the developer agreed to several concessions (such as vegetation height to preserve public vistas) and he agreed to donate a portion of land to the Town.
• The Lighthouse Motel owners began this process in March of 2005 with a plan to convert 22 motel rooms to 7 condo dwellings on their 1/3 acre. Later, as stated above, they agreed to the neighbors’ input and designed an attractive 5 dwelling plan. Then, 2 years later they proposed to convert 22 motel rooms (which have no kitchens and have always been seasonal) to 22 condo dwellings. Their lawyer wrote to the Town in the winter of 2007 to inquire if any approvals were necessary for this "change of ownership." The Town, after legal review, adopted the position that they would, indeed, need approvals because the plan was a “change of use." The Code Enforcement officer referred to the use at the time the property became non-conforming and, with case law provided by the Town attorney, he wrote the Town's official response.
• The Town Manager and Town attorney crafted a draft ordinance for the Council's consideration which would clarify these issues and regulate conversions of non-conforming motels. The controversy over the Lighthouse Motel, along with a growing trend elsewhere to convert motels to "condotels" was the impetus for the ordinance. A draft was on the Council agenda for March 7, 2007. Many citizens spoke in favor of the ordinance. The Town Council tabled it and referred it back to its Ordinance Committee leaving a retroactive provision that would affect the Lighthouse Motel since it was a "pending project."
• Notwithstanding the Town's response to the motel owners, they nevertheless filed condo declarations at the Registry of Deeds 12 days after the Town Council's First Reading. This effectively created the "Lighthouse Inn Condominiums."
• The Town filed its own declaration in the Registry of Deeds on April 3, 2007 alerting potential purchasers of condos there of the Town's ordinances, effectively creating a title defect should any condos be sold before approvals were granted.
• On July 26, 2007 the owners of the Lighthouse Motel erected a high stockade fence along the property line abutting the new subdivision and the parcel of land donated to the Town by the developer. The stockade fence obliterated public views of the ocean from the public road. The fence has been considered a spite fence by the Residents Group which asked the Town to intervene on July 27th. The Town Manager stated they were within their legal rights. The Residents Group proposed that the owners be informed that the Town would install an identical fence on the other side of the road in front of the motel if they did not remove the spite fence. The Manager indicated that he would not because property owners "can be unreasonable but the Town can't."
• The Town Manager proposed mediation between the neighbors and the owners to attempt to reach a compromise once again. The Residents Group agreed; the owners of the Motel refused.
• The Town Council held two additional hearings on the so called "Condotel Ordinance" in August and September, 2007. 14 citizens spoke in favor of the ordinance and a letter signed by 67 residents supporting it was published. One citizen spoke against it, and one of the owners of the Lighthouse Motel took the podium and threatened the Town Council with a lawsuit if it were adopted. The Council tabled it once again leaving the retroactive clause in effect and referring it back to the Ordinance Committee. Town Councilors Messer and Most stated that they were confident that our existing ordinances and the Town's position on the "change of use" at the Lighthouse Inn was sufficient until the ordinance could be given further review.
• On February 5th, Resident Group member and representative met with Dave Grysk, the Code Enforcement Officer, about her property. When she asked if anything was happening with the Lighthouse Motel and the ordinance, he stated that the Lighthouse Inn has been approved to sell their 22 hotel rooms as condos. His words were “They’re all set.” Judy called Ron Owens who confirmed this information.
• The Resident Groups Reps met and sent a letter on February 6th to the Town Council requesting an investigation into the matter. There had been no press release about this reversal of the Town's position, nothing had appeared in the papers, and there was nothing in the public record on the Town’s web site about it. The Council was reminded that the Group was anxiously awaiting the outcome of the ordinance committee's review and also reminded them that Councilors Messer and Most stated very clearly last fall that our existing ordinance was sufficient to require ZBA approval for a “change of use.” The Town attorney’s opinion has been very clear on this subject.
• E-mail exchanges between the Residents Group and Town Council resulted in the Council Chairman requesting a report and answers to our group's questions contained in the February 6th letter.
• The Residents Group, at the request of the Town Manager, submitted a revised set of questions with background materials to facilitate the report. This went to the Council and Chairman Messer extended the deadline for the report to March 30, 2007.
• The Town Manager is interviewed in the March 26 issue of the Current and stated that the report will be presented at the April 2nd Council meeting.
long-time resident of Pine Point, member of the Ladies' Auxiliary, local historian, and a truly wonderful lady.
Viola was co-marshall at last year's Pine Point Parade, a tribute to her place in the community.
She will be terribly missed by all.
Judy Learns from Code Enforcement Officer David Grysk that the
Lighthouse Motel is "All Set" to Convert to 22 Condos!
Representatives of Residents Group Immediately Write
Town Council Chairman Jeff Messer and
Ordinance Chairperson Councilor Sylvia Most
Requesting A Council Investigation
These are E-mail Exchanges Between February 6 - 11, 2008
FEBRUARY 6, 2008
From: Pine Point Residents Group [mailto:Pine-Point-Beach@maine.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 11:00 PM
To: Messer, Jeff ; sylviam@maine.rr.com
Cc: Owens, Ron ; galwaybay1@aol.com; john@thurlow com; Shirk, Judy ; Elaine Richer
Subject: Please Assist Us - Pine Point IssuesHi Jeff and Sylvia:
We hope you’re both well and had a fine holiday season.
We are writing because we are alarmed by some news we received and need your help, please.
Judy Shirk happened to speak with Dave Grysk yesterday and he informed her that the Lighthouse Inn has been approved to sell their 22 hotel rooms as condos. His words were “They’re all set.” Judy called Ron Owens who confirmed this information. You can understand how alarmed we are, but we have not informed the neighborhood yet until we learn more. We assume there has been no press release about this because nothing has appeared in the papers, and there is nothing in the public record on the Town’s web site about it (although the online agendas and minutes are still outdated).
We hope you agree that this is truly unbelievable given the Council’s referral of the so-called “condotels ordinance” draft back to its Ordinance Committee. You both stated very clearly last fall that our existing ordinance was sufficient to require ZBA approval for a “change of use.” The Town attorney’s opinion has been very clear on this subject (see attached). Two condo conversions of motels at Pine Point went through the ZBA last summer and fall (they were required to) at considerable expense to the owners - and there were fewer issues with those properties relative to their historical use than with the Lighthouse Inn. As you know, Pine Point residents offered compelling testimony to the Council and provided data and charts when we addressed you in the fall, and while we had hoped for an affirmative vote on the ordinance, we were nevertheless pleased that the Council kept the matter active by tabling it and referring it to the Ordinance Committee for further study. The community was reassured by your words concerning the existing ordinance and even more reassured when Sylvia and Shawn Babine reacted to Mr. Truman’s threat from the podium of legal action by stating they were not moved by such threats.
The position we presented to you was that each non-conforming motel is unique and should go through a public process for approval to convert. That would give the Town the ability to place reasonable conditions on projects. We were focused on the Lighthouse Inn because rather than covert to five units, a plan which the neighborhood supported, they chose to attempt to convert to 22 units - on one-third acre of land. And they intended to do this with no upgrades (as required by our ordinance) such as a sprinkler system, ADA requirements or asbestos abatement, and without resolving their road frontage problem (this facility has 18 inches of frontage from the public road) by negotiating a reasonable land exchange with the Town.
Would you please investigate this as soon as possible? We assume you and Sylvia have no knowledge of this and will want to intervene immediately. After learning this news, we searched the Registry of Deeds and the Trumans have, indeed, modified their condo declarations with language which appears to exploit a loophole in the ordinance using language defining motels that was enacted when the Residence Inn sought approval. That section of the ordinance was not applicable to existing non-conforming motels and hotels, as you know.
You are aware of the strong feelings of many of the people at Pine Point about this issue and you can just imagine the reaction if it turns out to be a done deal. We wonder what the investor-owners of the Beachwalk lots will think as they try to sell their investment in this market with a condotel across the street. We wonder how the Sun & Sand and Dunes Inn owners, who were required to go through the ZBA for fewer units on larger parcels will think.
We’re hopeful that Dave has not approved any “change of use” down there without Zoning Board approval and that he will not, under any circumstances, issue occupancy permits.
Jeff, you mentioned in an earlier email that you were going to discuss a contract zone idea there so we might finally get the land and road issues finalized and begin planning for a possible Gateway project there. We wondered if anything has happened.
On another related matter, there is a very large home being constructed at the Beachwalk across from the Lighthouse.. Very large. We believe that it may be in violation of the Planning Board approval. We also reviewed the Town tax assessments of those 9 parcels at the Beachwalk and there are some major discrepancies. We’ve attached examples from the Assessor’s database for you to see, as well as the email exchange with Mr. Lesperance (below). This is another new issue that will upset people because of the history there. Paul Lesperance indicated that Code Enforcement considers these lots unbuildable, but if you take a ride down you will see the enormous house under construction and infrastructure fully in place. Please let us know if they are buildable and if the assessments are going to be corrected. If not, there will be a considerable loss of tax revenue to the Town and substantial inequity with similar properties along the shore. Those whose shorefront properties are assessed at almost twice as high will understandably be concerned when they learn about this.
We have worked very hard for 3 years to participate in the public process and communicate openly and positively with the Town. It is very hard to accept that agreements have been made and the neighborhood has not been kept informed of developments. The last communication we had was about participating in mediation so we could move forward (see below), which we agreed to do.
Thank you both for any help you can provide. Time is of the essence because as soon as one unit is sold (none have been as of today), this issue will become much more complicated.
For the Pine Point Residents Group
Judy, Jack, Hutch, Elaine and John(Four attachments: please let us know if you did not receive them).
FEBRUARY 7, 2008
From: Ron Owens
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:56 AM
The Trumans are revising their declarations to be clear that the motel will continue to operate as seasonal motel and that there will be no change of use, which is the only issue on which the town could regulate. The Town cannot regulate the form of ownership but we had argued that would they proposed and filed in the condo declarations was essentially a change of use in that it was unclear that motel would continue to operate as a motel.
They have revised their documents to assure the Town that the motel will continue to operate as a seasonal motel with a central management as it has in the past; however, the rooms can be owned by individuals. Dave Grysk inspected each room to insure that there were no changes in layout and furnishings to suggest that the rooms were anything more than a typical motel room and to establish a base snapshot of the property should utilization of the motel units become an issue in the future.
No action was required of the Council since the Trumans revised their documents to satisfy all of the requirements that the Town Attorney had set out at the beginning of this process to avoid being considered a change of use. Documents are in the process of being filed by the Truman’s attorney and the Town Attorney clearly setting forth the nature and use of this property. The Trumans apparently decided they did not want to proceed to court to challenge the Town’s position and instead decided to accede to the Code Officer and Town Attorney’s requirements to avoid being characterized as a change of use. The other properties that went through the ZBA process were changing use or at least being legally recognized as year round living units with full kitchens. That is not the case of the Lighthouse Motel. I was planning to forward you copy of those documents when they are finalized which I also informed Judy yesterday.
Your note on tax assessments overlooks the fact that the assessments are based on conditions in effect on April 1, 2007 and at that time the lots were unbuildable. What you are seeing now and the fact that the lots are now buildable will be reflected in the assessments as of April 1, 2008. I know it can be confusing but all properties are assessed on April 1 of each year and tax payments due in Oct and March are based on the previous April’s values.
Ron
________________________________________________
(Residents Group Reps Note: The April 1, 2007 date does not reflect the fact that the lots should have been buildable if the Planning Board's approvals had been adhered to. The delay caused by Mr. Hollis's default, and the Town's violation of its own ordinance regarding the required Performance Guarantee created this situation. Since Hollis failed to pay the performance guarantee as required by Ordinance and by the Planning Board's approval, and because the Town held Hollis's business check for a portion of the guarantee for months (the check later bounced) this project should have been nullified. But the Town granted the owners of the lots, investors who neglected to perform their own due diligence regarding a clear title, major concessions because if its failure to enforce its own rules. There have been several violations of the Planning Board's approvals and disregard for representations made by the Developer. More information will be forthcoming.____________________________________________________
FEBRUARY 7, 2008
From: Jeffrey Messer
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 11:55 AM
I did discuss the contract zone idea with the Truman's last September. Obviously, they decided not to go in that direction. The town's position all along was that the property was a change of use by converting a hotel to condo units for year round use. We had the ordinance tabled to maintain leverage against this occurring, as well as the possibility of subsequent court action should they have proceeded. As Ron's e-mail indicates, and with confirmation from the Town Attorney, their conversion is not a change of use if it is still for seasonal use (less than 180 days). I'm surprised they agreed to this position, but my understanding is that is legal and the town would have little, if any, chance in a lawsuit of defending the change os use position (which was a strong position should they have tried to proceed for year round use). I realize this likely wasn't what the group had in mind as a final result, but the Truman's hold the cards on this scaled down version in my opinion. Hope all is well.
Regards,
Jeff____________________________________________________
FEBRUARY 7, 2008
From: Sylvia Most
Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 4:09 PM
HI Judy, Jack, Hutch, Elaine and John,
By now you have received Manager Owens response to your message. I do not have any additional information to add.
At this time, it appears that the Lighthouse Motel will remain in its current form and function.
Sincerely,
Sylvia____________________________________________________
FEBRUARY 11, 2008
From: Pine Point Residents Group
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 12:25 PM
Dear Mr. Owens, Councilors Messer and Most:Thank you for the email messages you each sent on the 7th of February concerning the Lighthouse Motel. With apologies for the length of this communication, we hope you will take the time to read it and respond. We have many things to say because we have worked very hard on this issue for a very long time and there is much at stake.
To be candid, and in all due respect, over 85 neighbors have been involved in this issue for three years, as of this month. We would have preferred to be informed of this disturbing development before it was finalized. We are sure you agree, Town government needs to be transparent, and we’re sure you recognize that our neighborhood group members have been as active as any other group in Town who seek to be involved in public matters.
We closely examine every agenda and read the minutes of the Council, Planning Board and Zoning Board and cannot find any record of negotiations or agreements with the owners of the Lighthouse Motel. We understand it is our responsibility as citizens to involve ourselves and we have no expectation that the Town is required to keep its citizens informed. But as you know, we participated in a Town Council study committee on this matter for 8 months beginning in September of 2005. Since then, we’ve worked very closely with the Town Manager regarding Depot Street and the Truman’s condominium proposals. We have reams of communications, over 40 newspaper articles have been written about the issues, and we have addressed the Planning Board, Town Council and Zoning Board of Appeals on several occasions. We also had promises from each of you to let us know if there were any developments, and we have “checked in.” frequently. The only reason we knew about this was because one neighbor happened to ask Dave Grysk about it when she was in to see him about her own property. We were shocked to learn what has occurred in the past few weeks.
We are, once again, in the position of having to react to significant decisions affecting the neighborhood, decisions for which the public has not had an opportunity to lobby its elected officials on this new plan; changes in the Condo Declarations. And we suspect that our elected officials were as uninformed as we were about this latest development.
While the Council is not expected to micro-manage Town government, it was brought into the Depot Street “Barricade” issue by the Town Manager himself and the Council voted to accept his recommendation to make the barricade across Depot Street longer and permanent rather than seasonal. This was exactly opposite what the neighborhood group had petitioned for. The Council voted on the Manager’s recommendations after debating it matter for all of 11 minutes, and the neighbors who had worked with the Town Manager on this long-standing controversial issue had no idea it was even on the Council’s agenda that night. In fact, the new barricade was already constructed before you were asked to vote on it! Neighbors obviously reacted strongly, and when the Council graciously allowed us to present our views through representatives (rather than filling the Council chambers with angry residents), you listened to our arguments and ordered the new barricade reduced in size considerably.
We use this simply as another example of both the importance of good communications with citizens and the Council’s involvement in what otherwise would be a small public works project. The Council recognized that it was more than that, it was important to the neighborhood and community that the public way to the shore be reclaimed for the citizens from its de facto private use by the motel for the past two decades.
Citizens can live with decisions made by their elected representatives provided they have the opportunity to influence those decisions. You listened to our testimony last fall when in favor of regulating condotels, and you tabled the so-called “Condotel” Ordinance rather than defeating it. You assured us that the existing ordinance would prevent this 22 room motel (which sits on 1/3 of an acre) from converting to condominium ownership without Zoning Board review. So we have patiently waited for the Ordinance Committee process to continue and have checked in frequently and looked online for an agenda. Now we learn, by happenstance, of this development. And it appears to be finalized. A done deal, as it were.
The reason we formally asked the Town Council to investigate this when we learned of it is because there are so many irregularities which we’ve discovered in the 48 hours since we learned the disturbing news. This is, in our view, a matter for the Council to attend to. You hire a manager to carry out policies and an attorney to advise you, of course. But when issues are controversial (Black Point Park, Solar Panels, Depot Street Barrier, and many more), you do become involved because citizens should have an opportunity to be heard. That is one of our Town’s solid values. We suspect that no member of the Council has read the documents pertaining to this. We have. And you should too as part of a formal investigation.
Town Managers and Attorneys make mistakes. The mistakes here include: stakeholders were not informed prior to agreements being made, the Council did not act on what is obviously a politically-charged topic, and a decision which will have enormous impact on our neighborhood was made erroneously. This has never been a straightforward issue; it has been a complex one without precedent in this Town and it deserves more than a few lines in a Condo Declaration to be resolved.
With respect to the irregularities mentioned above, we cite Councilor Messer’s reply to our request for an investigation. He wrote:
“The town's position all along was that the property was a change of use by converting a hotel to condo units for year round use.“ (see below for the full text of the message).
He went on to write:
“As Ron's e-mail indicates, and with confirmation from the Town Attorney, their conversion is not a change of use if it is still for seasonal use (less than 180 days).”
In all due respect, the documents prove otherwise and this is simply not true. You may be surprised to learn that the original Condominium Declarations, which the owners filed to create their condotel on March 19th of 2007, already had specific language restricting the units’ occupancy to the “six month rule.” Those original declarations also had language requiring that the facility be closed off-season and that a management system would be in place. In fact, if the Council were to investigate, as we formally request again, it would only have to simply compare the original Declarations from March 2007 with the Amended Declaration they filed just 15 days ago, (apparently with the Town Attorney’s blessing). The language in the Amendment concerning Occupancy and Use is virtually identical to the Original. Nothing has changed except for the addition of two months for closure and a paragraph that has very weak language (i.e. “any unit owner wishing to rent out his or her unit as a transient lodging on a nightly or weekly basis…”). The clause about kitchens in this paragraph is illogical and open to interpretation, and who would want to buy a condo and have no kitchen? There will be kitchens, just “creative” ones. The fact that potential owners of this unit have no obligation to make them available to the traveling public, and the inevitable addition of kitchens in some form certainly mean a CHANGE OF USE.
Mr. Owens wrote, “…Documents are in the process of being filed by the Truman’s attorney and the Town Attorney clearly setting forth the nature and use of this property.” Are there other documents out there? Why were they not recorded when the owners recorded their amendment 15 days ago?
Councilor Messer, the owners have always proposed seasonal use, not year-round use, as you wrote, but the Town still adopted a “Change of Use” position which would simply require Zoning Board approval. That is one role of the Zoning Board, and that is the process through which the public has a voice when non-conforming uses change to other non-conforming uses. We know the owners do not want to go through that process because it is very challenging and they experienced an unfavorable review three years ago. They know they are essentially creating 22 dwellings on one-third acre with off-site parking, and that would not go over well with the Zoning Board. Please remember, they agreed to a plan, affectionately known as “Plan D” which the neighborhood supported – and that was for FIVE condos. Even that density was controversial, but it represented a compromise.
We are not attorneys and neither are members of the Town Council, and you have to rely on counsel and advice from those you hire and retain. But that does not mean you cede decision making on a very political and controversial public issue to your attorney or Town Manager simply because they did not ask you to deliberate the issue in public. You discuss legal matters routinely and examine technical language. The Council should have, at the very least, been given a straightforward explanation - in open session - of what was done that resulted in a change in the Town’s formerly solid position on this matter. Then the Council could have heard from the public and provided direction to the Town Manager. The Council is not to blame. You must rely on issues being brought before you, and there is no question, in our view, that this latest decision was not an administrative one. The history is just too long, too controversial and has involved many, many citizens from the neighborhood to let it disappear under the guise of technical legalities. At the very least, you ought to get a second opinion.
You will remember that Mr. Truman threatened you with legal action from your podium last fall. We admired the courage of Councilors Most and Babine who responded to his vitriol by stating they were not moved by such threats. We hope that their admirable positions are embraced by everyone on the Council and that the Town did not enter into this new agreement to avoid litigation.
The Town Council has undoubtedly never read the Statement of the Town of Scarborough which Mr. Grysk filed at the Registry of Deeds when it was learned that the owners of the Lighthouse Motel ignored the Town’s position in March of 2007 and filed their Condo Declarations. They did this despite the Town’s response to their lawyer’s inquiry about whether they needed approvals. Incidentally, they filed these documents at the Registry 11 days before your first reading on the new “condotels” ordinance draft in April of 2007. Perhaps their thinking was that they would be grandfathered, but as you know State Law permits you to essentially enact ordinances that also apply to “pending projects” so just such strategies won’t work. If you were to read what the Town recorded at the Registry on April 3, 2007 in response to their filing, you would see the following warning :
NOTICE REGARDING THE LIGHTHOUSE INN CONDOMINIUM
“To prospective purchasers of units in the above-referenced condominium: You are hereby notified of the requirements of Section IV(G)(1)(b) of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Scarborough, Maine, which reads as follows:
Prior to any change in the ownership or tenancy of a building or structure other than a single-family, two family or multifamily dwelling (emphasis added), the owner of the building or structure (or the prospective new owner or tenant with the written authorization of the owner) shall obtain a new certificate of occupancy. The new owner or tenant shall not occupy the building or structure until it is brought into compliance with the requirements of this ordinance and any other applicable law, ordinance, rule or regulation for the use proposed by the prospective new owner or tenant.
This document will obviously remain at the Registry of Deeds and become part of title searches, and thankfully the Town has not yet filed any other documents related to the “Lighthouse Inn Condominium” (other than the perpetual tax liens the Town places on the motel for its failure to pay property taxes on time.) The language in the ordinance is crystal clear. The Lighthouse Motel is not a single family, two family, or multifamily dwelling. Therefore a new owner is required to obtain a new certificate of occupancy. The language above requiring new owners to bring their building or structure into compliance with codes is fundamental to the protection of the new occupants. This begs the question of how 22 future owners, who are yet unknown, will be able to collectively upgrade a facility with 22 living units which: has no sprinkler system, no legal kitchens, structural deficiencies that were exposed two years ago by the owners’ architect, asbestos shingles along the entire back of the building, several ADA deficiencies, single station smoke detectors which are not interconnected to all of the other units, no fire escapes, and no fire alarm pull stations. It's unimaginable that this change of ownership would not require such basic upgrades as clearly outlined in the ordinance. Fire codes are not grandfathered, ever, and the Town's obligation to protect the public is a fundamental foundation of its ordinances. Life safety is the first priority.
We hear the argument; but these are not dwellings. Therein lies the illogic – of course they are dwellings, perhaps not be legal definition but that is interpretation. As part of your investigation, Mr. Grysk will testify about the history of the language in the Ordinance; he will enlighten you that amendments were made when the Marriot Residence Inn sought to come to Scarborough. The definitions in the ordinance were never intended to apply to a seriously non-conforming hotel. The owners’ attorney was apparently able to craft a paragraph of language in the Declaration amendment to satisfy Mr. Vaniotis, but you must investigate this, not matter how much faith you have in your attorney, who we know is very well-respected.
Let's explore some scenarios that will likely occur if this is permitted without regulation or oversight.
Five families decide to chip in and buy one unit at the Lighthouse Condominium (that is their officially registered name, by the way). The families have an agreement between them to occupy the unit for two weeks each summer on a rotating basis. The result is a unit which is not available to the public as a motel room for ten weeks during the summer.
A senior couple from Vermont decides to invest in a unit and spend a month in Maine enjoying Pine Point beach. They rent the unit to a young couple they know for the balance of the six-month period. That unit is no longer available to the general public.
A corporation purchases a unit and uses it to entertain clients, or allows employees to use it as a benefit of employment. That unit is unlikely to be available to the general public.
Imagine the possibilities. It is within the realm of possibility that this “motel” will never operate as a motel and we are not convinced the Town has the ability to do anything about it. The end result, of course, is that it has CHANGED ITS USE. Now if it is argued that is hasn’t because of existing ordinance, then the question is why not complete the work on the condotels ordinance that so much time was invested it?
Furthermore, because the Lighthouse Motel is now technically condominiums, there is no requirement we can find which compels them to maintain an innkeeper's license and be subjected to the annual inspections which are conducted to protect the occupants. Obviously this oversight needs to be addressed? Today, what are they; motel or condo? Licensed or not? Innkeepers have many burdens when it comes to inspections and upgrades, and that is to protect the public.
We have many questions and would appreciate responses we can send to the neighbors on our large mailing list. As you know, many neighbors in Pine Point are away this time of the year and they depend on our communications to help them stay informed.
QUESTIONS
1. Have the new members of the Town Council been fully briefed on the 3 year history of this issue?
2. If the ordinance as it was crafted the last time the Council deliberated on it had been enacted, would the Town still permit this current arrangement?
3. Was there any discussion about a land exchange? If not, do you anticipate that the parking lot across the public road will forever remain where it is? If so, how does the Town feel about that since it negotiated for a donation of land to the Town abutting the parking strip in anticipation of a land exchange? Is that precious parcel now virtually unusable?
4. Was there any discussion about the new fence? Did the Town attempt to use its leverage to have that removed?
5. Did the Town use its leverage to negotiate with the owners to resolve the long-standing issue regarding their private use of Depot Street?
6. Is the Town attorney aware - and is the Town Council aware - that this may eliminate forever the possibility of a proportional exchange of land leaving the only option that of a 1:1 ratio (in other words, simply moving the parking area to front of the motel)? 22 units require 22 spaces (although the Zoning Board required 1.5 spaces for the other conversions they approved last summer), and the ordinance requires 2 for conforming properties.
7. Is the action the owners are taking to meet the Town’s requirements by modifying the declarations permanent? If they are able to amend their original declarations unilaterally as they did January 28th, what would prohibit the owners from doing so in the future? And if they did, what enforcement powers would the Town have?
8. If Owner A installs a full kitchen without a permit how will Code Enforcement know and what action would they take if they learned of it from another unit owner, for example?
9. What procedures are in place, or will be in place, by the Town to monitor this operation after one or more units are sold?
10. Will the Innkeepers ordinance apply to this?
11. Will there be annual inspections as there are for motels and how would individual owners react to that? Don’t they have rights as “homeowners”?
12. If there are violations, for example, who will be assessed fines – the owner (or multiple owners in the “Timeshare” scenario), the Association, the management firm?
13. Who on the town payroll will be auditing the guest register and monitoring compliance with the restrictions in the Declarations to insure that it is operating as a motel?
14. How will a central management operation be able to monitor how owners are using their units? For example, if an owner chooses to rent her unit herself, or make a deal with a relative or friend, how can the management possibly monitor that?
15. Have we set a precedent for other non-conforming motels to use the same loopholes?
16. Have we contacted the State to examine whether any statutes exist which supersede our ordinances, particularly those relating to life safety?
17. The Town manager stated that the Town cannot “regulate ownership,” but acknowledged that the Town specified certain requirements of its attorney. What are those requirements because they cannot be found in the Amended Declaration by the Lighthouse Motel.
18. How will the Town know if the Declarations are changed in the future?
19. Where did the so-called “six month clause” come from? This motel has never been opened for six months. Who defines “seasonal” as six months? It can be argued that “seasonal” is the summer period of June 21st to September 22nd (3 months). Even affording an extra month for leaf peeping, that is only four months. Again, by expanding the occupancy periods beyond what it always has been, this non-conforming enterprise is, indeed, changing its use.The motel owners, many, many citizens, and Town officials have spent three years seeing this situation evolve. Suddenly and without notice decisions have been made which we fear will be irreversible once units are sold, although we hope not. We urge the Council to direct the Manager, in public session, to inform the motel owners that they are not advised to sell units and that this process is not finished until it is thoroughly investigated by the Council. If the Manager entered into agreements without the Council’s approval, then the Council should take action to rescind any agreement made no matter what threat of legal action is offered - as it was last fall. If the Council did approve this, the public needs to know how it granted approval because there is no public record we can find, no action item or public notice.
An investigation does not imply that the Council itself needs to conduct a detailed inquiry. Retaining an impartial team of professionals to examine all of the facts and all of the history is an option. But whatever form the investigation takes, citizens should be able to testify.
We can all think that this is still a seasonal motel and that simply selling the units does not change its use or the nature of its operation, but that does not pass the straight face test. This will no longer be a motel. Even when lay persons read their Declarations and Amendment we can see how weak and unenforceable they will be by the Town. And the opportunity the Town has to reclaim the public way for the benefit of the public will be lost and the Hollis land donation will be useless to the citizens.
Finally, the owners erected a spite fence last summer. When the neighborhood objected strongly to the loss of public views of the sea, the Town said nothing could be done. We disagree. if that fence is not removed by June 1st, we recommend that the Town inform the owners that it will have no choice but to erect an identical fence on the motel side of the street along the new pedestrian walkway the Town painted. After all, motel guests walk right out into a public street, guests cars backing out of parking pose a hazard to pedestrian, beachgoers ignore the striped walkway, children of motel guests play games in the street routinely, motel guests use the public street to back up to their rooms to unload their vehicles; so it is perfectly logical that either the hotel owners fence that property line as well, or the Town should - for the protection of the public and the motel guests. Let’s see how that goes over. No Town Councilor lives in Pine Point, but we’re sure you love the area as much as we do. One of the most beautiful vistas in Pine Point from King and Depot Streets was obliterated by that fence and the Town can use its strength and authority to have it removed. Sure, there will likely be another threat of legal action from the owners, but as Councilor Most stated so well the last time the Council was threatened, she is not impressed or intimidated by threats.
If the Town will finally deal with these owners assertively with the best interests of the community in mind, they will have no choice but to cooperate. They have done nothing to cooperate to this point in three years, while the neighbors have been very cooperative. We are well aware of some feelings that our group is “out to get the Trumans” and that has been their strategy to discredit a large group of neighbors. It has worked to some extent. But for those who have been duped into believing this is personal, we can do nothing buy say it is simply not true and it is offensive to be told that. Some still will believe it.
Shawn Babine, just before he left the Council, stated during Council deliberation on the condotel ordinance that “the neighborhood opposed the five condos down there” and he “didn’t understand why.” A loud gasp filled the chambers packed with people from Pine Point because the neighborhood DID support the five condo plan and still does. It supports a land exchange in concept. But you see how even an elected official of his fine reputation was misinformed of the facts. So please put aside any bias you may have in this regard. This is not and never has been about the Trumans. As we’ve said before, we would be making the same arguments if Jill and Joe Blow owned the place.
Editorial Note: Councilor Babine clarified his position to us and we apologize for any mistatement. We will print is response when we receive permission from him.
<
