Harpswell planning board denies request to remove two lots from Tranquil Shore subdivision

The Harpswell Planning Board on April 1 denied an application by James and Sarah Maramman to remove lots five and six from the recorded Tranquil Shore subdivision plan, saying the change would conflict with the town’s subdivision ordinance and could undercut the ordinance’s minimum lot‑size requirements.

The board voted to deny the amendment after concluding it would allow the property owners to evade the subdivision minimum of 80,000 square feet per dwelling and take advantage instead of the 40,000‑square‑foot standard that applies to non‑subdivision lots. Chair (presiding) framed the decision as one about precedent and consistent interpretation of the ordinances; the final roll call on the denial recorded three votes in favor and two opposed.

Why it mattered

Planning staff and the town attorney told the board that while the board has authority to approve plan amendments, it must also decide whether a requested change would effectively subvert the purpose of the subdivision rules. Town Planner Margaret McIntyre summarized the concern in the board’s draft findings: removing the lots “seeks to circumvent the land use regulations imposed on lot five and six of the subdivision.” Legal counsel emphasized that section 8.12 of the subdivision ordinance permits amendments but that the board must decide whether a particular amendment would defeat the ordinance’s intent.

Arguments from applicants and counsel

Kevin Clark, speaking for the applicants and reading a letter from attorney Jim Hopkinson, argued the amendment complies with the town’s ordinances and state law, and cited LD 1829 — recent state legislation aimed at reducing barriers to housing — as supporting the proposal. In the written letter read into the record, Hopkinson’s conclusion was summarized: the request “very clearly comply with the subdivision regulation, ordinance, comprehensive plan, development plan, or land use plan.” Clark also said prior board minutes found other standards met and that details about future use of the lots were not part of the formal application.

Family testimony and public comment

Applicant family member Emily Marman addressed the board and described the proposal as a narrowly tailored, family‑focused project to allow children to remain in Harpswell. “This request is consistent with the town’s comprehensive plan and aligns with anticipated state changes that support smaller lot sizes,” she said, asking the board to judge the request on its individual facts rather than on generalized precedent concerns. Neighbors and others noted that additional acreage had been available at one point and questioned why a purchase to create conforming lots had not been pursued.

Board reasoning and votes

Board members repeatedly returned to two central concerns: whether removing the lots would set a precedent enabling many subdivision lots to be withdrawn to obtain higher density, and whether the board could be seen as overriding the voters’ earlier adoption of the subdivision rules. After a motion to find most state statutory standards met (Title 30‑A M.R.S. §4404), the board considered item 9 — conformity with local ordinances and plans — separately. The board voted that item 9 was not met on the facts presented and then adopted conclusions of law stating the application failed to meet the town’s subdivision standards. The motion to deny the amendment carried on a roll call vote (three in favor, two opposed).

What happens next

Board members and staff suggested the family and town should continue to pursue policy changes if the town wishes to allow smaller lots more broadly — for example, through an ordinance change or implementation steps tied to the comprehensive plan — rather than by one‑off amendments. The denial does not prohibit the applicants from returning with revised proposals, pursuing changes at the town‑meeting level, or attempting to address the specific conformity concerns raised by the board.

Authorities referenced in the hearing included the town’s subdivision ordinance (section 8.12 and section 11.1 minimum lot standards) and state law (Title 30‑A M.R.S. §4404 and LD 1829).

Ending

The board closed the Maramman agenda item after adopting its findings and conclusions of law and moved on to other business. The applicants and supporters were thanked for their civility and invited to continue engagement on housing policy at the town level.