Appeal of Decision by Director of Public Works Pursuant to Title II, Section Presentation to the Cape Elizabeth Town Council December 13, 2010 Robert H. Stier, Jr. 9 Rock Crest Drive, Cape Elizabeth

Cape Elizabeth Town Ordinance Title II, Sec Sec Entrance Permit Required. No owner of property abutting upon any public way within the Town shall construct, cause or permit to be constructed, altered or relocated, any driveway, entrance, or approach or other improvement within the right-of way of such road or extending from such road onto his property except in accordance with an entrance permit issued upon his application to the Director of Public Works and except for the bona fide purpose of securing access to his/her property and not for the purpose of parking or servicing vehicles within such right-of-way. Decisions of the Director of Public Works are appealable to the Town Council. A permit fee established by the Town Council shall be paid for each permit. [Amended Eff. 1/11/95 and 01/07/09] 2

THE 10/28/10 ENTRANCE PERMIT 3

CHRONOLOGY DATEEVENT 5/20/ Mitchell Road listed for sale by Mr. Pillsbury (Ex A) 9/15/ Mitchell Road sold to Early Bird Group LLC (Pillsbury and Richard) for $500,000 (Ex A) 10/25/2010Building permit submitted 10/28/2010Driveway entrance permit issued 11/1/2010Building permit issued 11/24/2010Communications between Stier and Director of Public Works Malley (Ex B) 11/28/2010Stier notice to Town Manager regarding appeal 4

COMMUNICATIONS WITH DIRECTOR MALLEY (EX B) 5

BASIS FOR APPEAL I.THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS SHOULD NOT PERMIT ACCESS TO A STREET WITHIN A SUBDIVISION FROM A LOT OUTSIDE THAT SUBDIVISION WITHOUT FIRST CONSIDERING THE IMPACT ON THE RESIDENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION AND AFFORDING THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. II.THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED THE ENTRANCE PERMIT HERE BECAUSE THE APPLICATION DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION ACCORDINGLY, THE TOWN COUNCIL SHOULD REVERSE THE DECISION BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND REQUIRE THAT THE ENTRANCE BE ONTO MITCHELL ROAD. 6

PERMITTING A DRIVEWAY INSIDE THE STONEGATE SUBDIVISION FROM A LOT NOT SUBJECT TO ITS COVENANTS DESTROYS VALUE FOR THE RESIDENTS OF STONEGATE. 7

THE RESIDENTS OF STONEGATE HAD A LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION THAT THE NATURAL BUFFER DESIGNED TO SEPARATE THE SUBDIVISION FROM THE PROPERTY AT 370 MITCHELL ROAD WOULD NOT BE DESTROYED – ESPECIALLY NOT WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT OR OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. 8

STONEGATE PLAN, MAY 29, 1992 NATURAL BUFFER MAINTAINED BY STONEGATE 9

STONEGATE PLAN, MAY 29, 1992 WITH OVERLAY FROM GOOGLE EARTH 10

A NATURAL BUFFER PROVIDED BY THE SUBDIVISION PLAN WAS DESIGNED TO SEPARATE STONEGATE FROM THE PROPERTY AT 370 MITCHELL ROAD. NATURAL BUFFER MAINTAINED BY STONEGATE 11

THE NATURAL BUFFER AS OF 5/16/2010 BUFFER 370 MITCHELL RD STONEGATE ROAD 12

THE SOUTH ENTRACE TO STONEGATE AS OF MAY

Sec Conditions of Permit. The location, design and construction of any entrance permitted shall be in accordance with all local regulations and with the following requirements: THE PERMITTED ENTRANCE VIOLATED LOCAL REGULATION (c) (GENERAL STANDARDS OF SUBDIVISION DESIGN) Plants or other types of vegetative cover shall be preserved or placed throughout and around the perimeter of any proposed subdivision to provide for an adequate buffer, reduction of noise and lights, separation between the subdivision abutting properties, and enhancement of its appearance. Local Regulation Section (c) provides: 14

“NEW CONSTRUCTION IN STONEGATE” 15

THE APPLICATION FOR ENTRANCE PERMIT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE II, SECTION Sec Application. Application shall be made by filing with the Director of Public Works together with an inspection fee established by the Town Council. The applicant shall furnish a copy of plans or sketches showing the proposed entrance locations, width and arrangement; distance between entrances; setback of building, gasoline pumps, etc., in relation to the center line of the traveled way; length, size and location of existing pipes, culverts, catch basins or manholes, curbing, curb and gutter, and/or sidewalks, and the proposed location of new pipes, culverts, catch basins or manholes, curbing, etc., if required by the Director of Public Works. [Amended Eff. 1/07/09] 16

THE SITE PLAN WAS NOT TO SCALE AND DID NOT DESCRIBE THE SETBACK TO THE CENTER LINE OF THE TRAVELED WAY. 17

BECAUSE IT FAILED TO SHOW THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENT TO THE CENTER LINE OF THE TRAVELED WAY, THE APPLICATION MINIMIZED THE EXTENT THAT IT PROPOSED TO DESTROY THE NATURAL BUFFER WHICH WAS DESIGNED TO SHIELD THE STONEGATE SUBDIVISION FROM THE ABUTTING PROPERTY AT 370 MITCHELL ROAD. 18