Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board leaves Manitoma subdivision hearing open after abutter raises drainage and abandoned‑road ownership concerns
Summary
An abutter to the proposed Manitoma subdivision told the Readfield Planning Board that driveway culverts and plunge pools she installed are omitted from the developer’s plans and that a recently abandoned road segment may have reverted to abutters, complicating the town’s authority over road work. The board left the hearing open, limited new submissions to the road/ownership/drainage issue, and asked the parties to provide written resolution materials and any revised drawings.
The Readfield Planning Board paused substantive deliberation on the Manitoma final‑plan application after an abutter, Meredith Lee, raised new concerns that could affect the town’s ability to require road and stormwater improvements.
Town staff told the board they received a late letter and supporting material from Ms. Lee’s counsel asserting that a short segment of roadway in front of Ms. Lee’s home was abandoned in the past and that ownership may have reverted to the abutters. Ms. Lee went on to say that her contractor-installed culverts and plunge pools — required for an earlier driveway permit and for a 2022 build-out — were omitted from the developer’s drawings; she fears those measures could be removed or relocated in a way that undermines her septic, drainage, and property access.
Developer representatives and the town attorney said the developer has a right of way for access but that a right of way does not equal full ownership of the underlying strip of land; the town attorney said factual determinations about ownership are not the planning board’s role and recommended the parties submit written positions and, where necessary, revised engineering drawings. The developer’s team said it had no intent to damage Ms. Lee’s improvements and offered to collaborate with professional engineers and the road commissioner to find solutions that protect her investments while meeting town road standards.
Given the late timing of the legal submission, several board members urged the parties to negotiate outside the meeting and return with an agreed resolution or, at minimum, written proposals and updated plans that address culverts, plunge pools, and proposed road widening. The board asked for a written status or revised drawings by June 20 so members could review materials before the next regular meeting on June 24; members also discussed a possible special meeting if necessary.
A motion to leave the public hearing open while limiting additional submissions to the narrowly defined ownership/drainage matter passed on a voice vote; the board recorded Don as voting "yes." The board did not deliberate substantively or issue a decision on the subdivision at this meeting; it instructed staff to accept and docket written submissions limited to the ownership/drainage issue and to schedule follow-up consideration after parties either reach an agreement or provide technical revisions.
