Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Subdivision Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables Greenview Acres subdivision amendment after neighbors say they were not notified
Summary
The Planning Board voted 6-0 to table a subdivision amendment that would remove about 20–21 acres from Lot 5 and transfer it to the country club after nearby residents said they were not mailed required notice and produced a deed they said shows the option had expired.
The Sanford Planning Board voted unanimously to table a proposed subdivision amendment for Greenview Acres (Greenview Lane) after residents said they had not received required notice and raised covenant and option-expiration concerns.
Rob McShorley of Spegga Technics, representing applicant Adam Blakely and Associates, explained the request to exercise a title option to remove roughly 20 acres from Lot 5 and transfer it to the country club; he said the applicant provided deed copies and proposed a 2.15-acre open-space parcel to meet current standards. McShorley asked the board to remove a historical note on the original subdivision plan that referenced no further development on Lot 5.
Resident Cheryl Goodno (Lot 5) and her husband told the board they had not been notified that the amendment would be considered and said their original deed shows a 20-year option that expired on July 11, 2005. They said subdivision covenants require owners’ agreement for covenant changes and expressed concern that creating a landlocked parcel or unagreed covenant changes would be improper.
Jamie (planning staff) responded that the 20-year period referenced in application materials is measured from the date ownership transferred to the option holder (not July 11 as neighbors asserted) and said the application indicated abutters were notified prior to the 20-year date. Staff also explained a technical notice problem: mailing notices are generated from GIS map-and-lot entries, and because the neighbors’ parcel used an application map-and-lot number rather than a standard map-and-lot, the GIS mailer likely did not include their address. For that reason, staff recommended tabling the amendment to ensure all required abutter notices are mailed and statutory notice time is met.
A board member moved to table the item; the motion was seconded and carried 6-0. Jamie said staff will reissue abutter notices, confirm which properties must be mailed, and, if helpful, obtain a statement from the applicant’s attorney documenting prior notification claimed in the application materials. The public hearing will be reopened when the item returns to the board after proper re-noticing.
