CARRABASSETT VALLEY – The planning board is recommending that a developer be penalized for not disclosing all of his building plans when a slopeside condominium subdivision at Sugarloaf was built four years ago.
At their meeting on Jan. 28, four members of the planning board: Helen Poulin, Dan Chaff, Alan Sleight and James McCormack voted in favor of recommending to selectmen that Lloyd Cuttler be fined $2,500 for telling planners that his condominium development, Castle Creek, would include a protective covenant in the deeds. The covenant would restrict basements at Castle Creek for storage only.
It was later discovered that all but four of the units not only had full basement foundations, but some of the owners had finished their basements to create additional living areas.
“Some members of the board felt he had mislead the board into getting something sold as something else,” said Bill Gilmore, the town’s code enforcement officer of the board’s decision.
The planning board found that Cuttler, as the developer, in not disclosing that the protective covenant was in place did not secure the correct building permits for the full basement work that was completed by the owners. Two members of the board, Neal Trask and Jan Kremin abstained from voting on the matter and the board’s chairman, Bruce Miles votes only in the event of a tie.
According to Gilmore, the planning board can’t levy penalties directly, but is expected to present their decision at the March 1 meeting to selectmen who then decide the issue. Cuttler is a long-serving selectman and would be expected to recuse himself from the vote. Calls to Cuttler to comment for this story were not returned.
The original concept for the Castle Creek condominium development was presented to the planning board at their April 27, 2005 meeting. Initially, it was going to be three buildings of four units each for a total of 12 pre-fab modular homes. On June 30, 2005, the subdivision’s permitting discussion continued with more details about the project presented to the board by Cuttler. According to the development application, the 12-unit condominium development would be set on 4.34 acres at the base of Snubber ski lift. Each 1,200 square foot unit would have three bedrooms, two-and-a-half baths and a small storage in the basement with a protective covenant preventing further development of the lower level.
According to the Web site, each unit was listed “starting at $275,00.” Among the amenities listed are a “breezeway entrance and attached ski locker, open floor plan with mountain views.”
According to the minutes, Cuttler said he did not anticipate the condos’ owners would be able to get enough space to have a full basement because of what was thought to be a higher water table than was actually found when the foundations were dug.
At the July 2005 meeting, the planning board gave its final approval for the project. In January of 2006, Cuttler returned to the planning board to amend the development’s permit to 11 units. Construction of the prefab development was fast and in a matter of a few months it was completed.
The planning board found at their Oct. 29, 2009 meeting: “As it turned out, they were able to get full 8-foot (floor to ceiling) basements, which he fully sprinkled (emergency sprinkler systems added) due to the 8-foot height.”
On recent inspections at the request of the planners, Gilmore found that the owners of seven of the 11 units have a full basement finished off. He also found that some of the owners not only had their basement area finished but had built out the lower level from the unit’s original footprint.
Gilmore said he has no issue with the owners’ construction now since the basements have sprinkler systems and stairs or other egresses so all life safety code standards have been met.
“Lloyd did not actually think it would be legal to have living spaces in the basements, but since they are sprinkled, it turns out that they are legal in terms of life safety,” according to the Oct. 29, 2009 minutes.
What remains to be corrected in order to meet the town’s ordinance, noted planning board Chairman Bruce Miles, is changing the certificate of occupancy for each condo which are based on finished units from the first floor up. In addition, property revaluation for those units with finished living areas in the basement and there’s a potential parking space limitation.
The ordinance requires that there be three parking spaces for more than three bedrooms so, as it stands now, if all four of the remaining condo owners who haven’t finished their basements decide to add a bedroom in the basement area more parking spaces may need to be found.
Planner Dan Chaff asked if Cuttler can be requested to come back with an amended plan to correct the inconsistencies but Cuttler said he no longer owns the development. Gilmore said Cuttler sold all of the units when the real estate market was in better shape four years ago and the condo’s association of owners took over common land and all responsibility for the subdivision.
MIles noted this is the first time he knows of the board has taken punitive action against a developer. He will be making the recommendation on behalf of the planners to selectmen. He added Cuttler “is a great guy” but the matter “is a valid concern.”
I hate Gepetto’s