Hampden council advances dangerous-building action, subdivision appeal change

[0:18] Matthew LaChance: Good evening. I'd like to call to order the town council meeting of September 21st, 2026. Would you please join me with the Pledge of Allegiance? To [0:35] Dennis Marble: the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [1:01] Matthew LaChance: Next is the approval of the agenda. Do I have a motion to approve the agenda? So moved. Second. Any discussion? Roll call vote. Approve. Aye. Aye. I have [1:23] Matthew LaChance: a motion to approve the consent agenda. Thank you. Second. Thank you. Any discussion on that? D, public comment. Do we have any members? Oh, I'm sorry, approve. Thank you. Aye. Aye. Sorry [1:52] Matthew LaChance: about that, trying to do too many things at once. The next item is public comment. If any member of the public has anything, any comments that on anything that are not on the agenda tonight, please come up to the podium. No, nobody on, nobody's watching in TV land. We don't have any news presentation awards, no public hearings, no nominations, appointments and elections. Committee reports. Unfinished business. I'm rushing, I know, I don't mean to be, did I miss anything? I guess this is gonna be too short of a meeting if I don't start now. New business. Item A. Council authorization for the town manager and code enforcement officer to work with the town's attorney and proceed with notice and other requirements for the resolution of the dangerous building located at 131 Old County Road, referred from the 9 14 workshop. Any public comment on that? It sounds nice. Chair, before we have discussion, we need to have a motion. Go under rules of the news. Oh, I'm sorry, thank you. Could we have a motion to, for the second? Sorry about that. Now we can have a discussion. I don't think nobody in the public wanted to talk about it, so anybody in the council want to talk about it? Paula, do you want to talk about it? [3:42] Unidentified staff member (code enforcement): Can you recap? I can recap. I was, wasn't sure if the members of the audience were here for that purpose or not, but no, so basically we have received several complaints on this property on Old County Road, and we have found that the building is in a dangerous building state, holes in the roof, animals being going into the building, there have been squatters there that the police department has had to get out of the building, and it is considered a hazard to the health and safety of the neighborhood and Members of the public, so we are looking to move forward with working with our attorney and with our attorney on all of the requirements needed for the building, dangerous building statute requirements. We discussed it at the last workshop, and this that was your first hearing, and then tonight we're just looking for the affordable vote. Yes, they are, especially since we've placarded it as a dangerous building, or is a building that no one should be in. I don't know if Miles informed them. I didn't. I'm assuming that he would have let them know, because he's been in very much contact with them throughout this [5:34] Matthew LaChance: whole process okay thank you haven't you haven't gotten a hold of the owner still no [5:44] Unidentified staff member (code enforcement): we've, we've tried. I think Miles has tried three times sending certified mailings, and they've all been returned to us, and we are not 100 sure that the last known address that we have is correct. We have heard that the person is in another state incarcerated, and we have no ability to find that out, but the attorneys, they have, they have different databases that they can access, so Pula has. Have the taxes being paid on that property? Yes, we receive a check once a month, payment every month for the taxes on that property, and the address on the check is the same address that we are sending notices to, so I don't know if it's just like an automated bill pay that somebody had set up on there, you know, through their bank or not sure, but thank you, [6:44] Matthew LaChance: Paula. [6:47] Dennis Marble: If this ends up that we demolish the building, would the owner still [6:55] Unidentified staff member (code enforcement): retain the property then? I take it we would then be in the position where we would place liens on the property, and it's a different kind of lien than just a tax lien. It would be a matter of us being able to recoup expenses that we put into the building, the demolition, right? Yeah, we'll [7:25] Matthew LaChance: call vote. Approve. Aye. Aye. Seven zero. Ah, six zero, one minute, one absent. Okay, this next, this next item is Counselor Jacobus has asked, has said he's spoken to all you about amending the or changing, presenting a different, motion. Is everybody agreeable to that? Can we do that? Can we do that? Yes, go ahead. So I just want to [8:09] Unidentified staff member (code enforcement): Make it clear in case there's, I feel like there's a misunderstanding. Agenda items are not suggested motions, they're just topics that we're going to be discussing, so you guys have the latitude to take what we're trying to, as staff we're trying to figure out exactly what the meaning is of what it is that you're going to be hearing and put it in a way that it makes it easy to understand on the agenda, but you guys have the ability to make your motions in the form that you desire, so I just want to make [8:41] Matthew LaChance: that clear. Let me ask an odd question, did you write these two agenda items? I yes, they're [8:49] Unidentified staff member (code enforcement): excellently worded. I just, I just, I noticed that I'm, you know, thank you. I have a, I still have a very young clerk, very, you know, in the, in the position only since February, so I don't know who usually writes my, try to assist her as much as possible. Right, no way, I, you know, say I know, I don't, I don't like it. Okay, yeah, thank [9:14] Dennis Marble: you Paul. There was a bit of confusion before with our new council procedures, whether I wasn't sure whether councillors should be making individual motions or we just go right off the agenda. I had no problem with the way you wrote it, but I wrote up one just in case, so I figured I might as well read it, so okay, and I also sent everybody an email with the, with the wording if you want to look at it, so I move that pursuant to section 1 point 11 point 1 point 2 of the hand and subdivision ordinance the Town Council requests that the Planning board to develop and consider an amendment to section 3.5 which would establish a record-based appellate review of final planning board subdivision decisions by the town board of appeals. The amendment would give the town board of appeals authority to affirm or when appropriate remand a matter to the Planning Board when preserving subsequent judicial review under Rule 80B. The Planning Board will return its recommendation to the council in accordance with section 1.11 of that ordinance. Do [10:35] Matthew LaChance: you want to second that? I'll second it. Yeah, public comment. Do we have any? Go ahead please. Go ahead. Ron [10:58] Public commenter (Hajdu, 85 Summer Street): Hajdu, 85 Summer Street. I'd like to rise in support of Wally's amendment. At the workshop, I believe it was, there was some comments expressed by some of the counselors about well, this is going to put a lot of demand on our appeals board to get familiar with the subdivision ordinance, something that they're not experts in, they're more focused on the zoning ordinance, and it would kind of double the information they would need to have. And I would like to say speak against that idea, in that I'm in the process now of filing an appeal for the appeals board based on a, it's basically a procedural appeal on the, on the zoning ordinance, and the zoning ordinance has very specific requirements for an appeals process. It isn't a frivolous process at all. There's stated, there's four different ways that you can, you can file it up, or four different venues or ways, if I guess, you can file an appeal aspects, you can file an appeal, and it's really a procedural thing. So the Planning Board of them, the appeals board doesn't need to be experts on the zoning law, just like they wouldn't have to be experts on subdivision law. It's really, they're looking at a procedural issue. So was the meeting carried on and was all the information followed, that type of thing. So it's a very specific process for zoning that could be readily apply to subdivision, I think, while retaining the 80b ultimate judicial appeal. I don't know these things, but I asked AI to file an 80b, that's 80, 8-0-b, to file an 8-0-b appeal and be heard before a judge. In Maine, the average time is something on the order of 134 days to get that court date. And so that's not a particularly responsive time, and obviously there's lots that the court system is burdened with, and so I presume that it's a relatively low priority. And so I think to keep our process local for our appeals board and make it look like what we do for our zoning ordinances is very appropriate. Rent so I just like to support anyone else [13:43] Matthew LaChance: You don't want to make comment on that council [13:49] Eric Jarvi: Comment please go ahead sir, Mr. Vice Chair, conceptually I agree with the intent, but I'm going to rise in opposition to the motion as currently worded, as it only requests the development and consideration of an [14:06] Matthew LaChance: amendment. Can you hold on just a minute here, he had a point of order. Yeah, I thought the [14:10] Dennis Marble: person that made the motion was allowed, actually. Yeah, you're absolutely right, I'm sorry. Yeah, so I just wanted to ex, to explain the rationale for this. I'm concerned that our current ordinance really doesn't provide a timely and viable method for an appeal of a planning or decision from any of the same reasons that Ron just spoke about. If this matter goes to the Superior Court, it's gonna take you know at least, you know, this is at least 90 days for it to go through the proper process, and even if It was heard that next day it's still gonna take probably another month or so for the decision to be made and reality in reality it usually takes as Ron was saying probably about three or four months or it just to be heard and in the meantime any project there's not a an appeal doesn't result in a mandatory hold on the project rather that's a discretionary process it's up to the judge to decide whether or not he wants to he or she wants to grant a hold on the on the project and in the meantime The project can be completed I'm cons you know I'm concerned about that we're forcing citizens to go through an ex you know expensive process when we could be offering them in an administrative appeal at a much lower cost than having to hire a lawyer and so forth. So that's the primary reasons that I'm offering up this amendment. [16:17] Matthew LaChance: Sorry, Councilor Jarvi. Sorry I interrupted you. [16:20] Eric Jarvi: No, you were absolutely right, Speaker, or the maker of the motion, not the amendment. That's the right of first. Again conceptually I agree with the intent of the motion as stated but I rise in opposition to the motion as currently worded as it only requests the development and consideration of an amendment that's the specific wording you chose to use here and as such only expresses a desire versus an actionable statement for the planning board to amend I think there's a clear difference in what the motion says versus what I think our intent is this for an actionable item to that furthermore the motion I think I believe is silent on the timing of the appeal prior to a filing of rule 80b court action as such I move to amend the motion to read as follows I move that pursuant to section 1-1.1.2 of the Hamden subdivision ordinance the Planning Board amend section 3.5 to establish a record-based appellate review of Planning Board final decisions for subdivisions prior to an appellate filing a ruling 880 B court action I believe that is actionable as opposed to suggested I'll [17:46] Mark Cormier: second that motion thank you I support it as well do [17:53] Matthew LaChance: you have anything that you'd like to add no yeah I'm I'm I just read your boss now doesn't take much your last final sentence in your I and our personal staff do not think we should ask the planning board to amend the subdivision ordinance or the board of appeals ordinance regarding jurisdiction to make basically you guys don't think you don't think you need it you need to think things work [18:24] Unidentified staff member (code enforcement): And find the way they are correct, I think, is based upon all of our experience and in and having discussion with the attorney from MMA. There have been other subdivisions that have been in situations where the neighbors, you know, didn't like it or different things about it. It didn't require a change to the process. I this has been the process since 2006 when the ordinance was adopted. It's considered the exception and not the norm to have an appeals process for these subdivision decisions. The council can't, it can only request that the planning board amend it, and then if they decide not to, then you guys would have to vote two-thirds to require that amendment. So your staff is not in favor of this process. This [19:41] Mark Cormier: is a topic I really gave a lot of thought to over the last week or two and realized at some point fairly early on I was getting mired in my own ignorance. I think there are arguments pro and con, but I got to the point where I needed help, so I reached out to a couple professionals I know familiar with content who do not have a vested interest in anything specific here, and the opinions I got back were consistent and were in favor of offering citizens of Hampton a non-judicial or more a chance to bring grievances to peers, is the way one of them phrased it. I took seriously town manager and staff's input. I think everybody knows I respect the work the staff does here, but I think in this instance I'm going to be voting in the affirmative on the motion. It's also the whole topic is a reminder to me to this council about how seriously we need to take our appointment responsibilities. There have been a lot of times in the past when an appointment or a volunteer has come forward to get on a commissioner or board and in essence and I've been a part of this, a lot of voices up here simply thought great, we have someone willing to serve, and we in essence rubber stamp things. This is fairly serious stuff we're asking of volunteers, and I think we need to be careful and thorough in our review and support of people who step forward to serve on such things, especially in a situation like this with its verticality. So thank you Mr. Chair, I'll be voting yes regarding [21:37] Dennis Marble: The staff's opinion and then one of the reasons, one of the ways that I wrote this, I wanted to make sure that the Planning Board retained its power to be the primary decision-maker, you know, in this in this process. And so if you know if you read the motion again, I know if the Board of Appeals disagrees with the original decision, they're sending it back to the Planning Board to reconsider it. So I'm not trying to subvert the process of the Planning Board. I'm trying to retain as much power as it as it originally exists, you know, as it exists right now, and again just trying to give the citizens another chance at this hearing further [22:46] Mark Cormier: discussion procedural question. This is, I get confused at these moments. We had a motion, we've had an amending motion that I think we need to act on whether or not to vote yes on the amendment. I think we should, we should have done that before we discussed it. Should we not? No, I don't think that's necessary, but we at some point need to do that. Well, let's do that [Matthew LaChance: right now so] can someone state clearly what it is we're voting yes or no on right now since he since [23:16] Eric Jarvi: he made the amendment, we'll let him. Pursuant to section 1.11.1.2 of the Hamden subdivision ordinance, the Planning Board, I'll, I'll give the strikeouts here, we're going to strike out the town council request, the Planning Board, strike out to develop and consider, and add the word amendment to section 3.5 to establish a record-based appellate review of Planning Board final decisions for subdivisions prior to an appellate filing a Rule 880b court action. We'll [23:58] Matthew LaChance: call a vote on the amendment. You want to start or do you want to start on the other end? Approve. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi 601 absent. We're gonna vote on the vote on the amended motion. Does anybody, yeah, I did, I did [24:40] Walter Jakubas: Do we know how many times this might have been employed since this new amendment 2006? I mean with this, I guess I'm really asking with this, have helped or gotten in the way or whatever way you want to phrase it over the last 20 years, or is, or are we trying to fix a white elephant? I'm not, you weren't the town [25:13] Unidentified staff member (code enforcement): town manager 20 years ago, Paul. I don't mean to apply, I'm not aware of prior appeals that actually went to Superior Court. I haven't, I haven't researched that. I don't know that, I don't know that Miles has either. I think we would have heard, I think it would be a well-known if our Planning Board was making egregious area errors time and again, that would become very well known, I think, and it would be something that would [25:50] Walter Jakubas: Be in the forefront so and in talking to the MMA attorneys and anyone else you talk to is this, how do I want to say this, a situation where putting this in place really probably wouldn't change things? It's just interjecting a step, and if parties are disgruntled, it's going to go to court anyways. We're just adding time. I know there's a hope by doing this that we take out a judicial step in 134 day average waiting period and all that stuff, but is the converse true? Is this, are we likely to help versus likely to just be another step? Is there any [26:40] Unidentified staff member (code enforcement): insight into that? The indication that attorney Pringle gave me was that oftentimes the local intermediate step does cause more delays because they go through, they have to, they have to go through the exact same information that the planning board went through, they have to, everything has to be based upon the same criteria. He said a lot of times and it happens in every community that the local flavor, you know, relationships and that sort of thing can often sway someone's thought process when they're only basing something on an emotional situation rather than facts of what it is that they are hearing, so sometimes they may make mistakes that end up causing the situation to be in court in the end anyways, so it's cost extra time. And you guys all have the right to contact Attorney Pringle at MMA, I mean if you had further questions that they don't email, they always call. I sent an email, they always call, so I try to take down the notes of what they said to the best of my ability and he wasn't in favor of it. [28:11] Dennis Marble: So in response to some of your questions, again the reason that I undertook this effort because I was at the planning board meeting when this occurred. I was trying to be responsive to my constituents, and it was my feeling that when they had asked for an independent review and weren't granted that, possibly, I'm not saying it was, but that possibly could have been a mistake. And I wanted, I wanted to provide them some type of recourse and there was none or there are none that are offered in our ordinances, so that's why I wanted to create one. It's not gonna help them, but I was hoping in the future that if citizens get in another similar situation that they don't have to go to court right away and bear the expense and time. It also concerns me too, you know, when we talk about time, I think of the people that have lived and there's many long-term residents there that have lived on the property for 30 some years and if you have development come in they have to live with that for a long a long time and I'm concerned about how much time and the feeling of the people on that street have when they feel that you know Ford we have four butters that could very easily lose property value because of this development and there may be other hazards that are you know hazards are created again I just want to provide some type of additional you know recourse and yes I agree with Paula that this may result in taking a little bit more time but sometimes a little bit more time is a good thing Mr. [30:21] Eric Jarvi: Vice Chair first off I'm not so sure any action by this council asking the Planning Board to amend would retroactively apply to back decision right and so we're using that as a case study but and I may be wrong like that but the process putting the process in place through this request I think is germane moving forward I wish I'd brought the packet you prepared for us because I think the research you did in your white paper clearly suggested that there is already a precedence for appeals boards around the state and several other communities and so this isn't like we're actually creating something brand new. So they have been used in other communities, and I would assume successfully. And I would remind council, again, as was pointed out by our guest member of the public, the appeals board is going to look at procedural issues, not factual content. Okay the Planning Board arrives at their decision through careful deliberation of the factual content what the Appeals Board does is as the procedure followed they're not going to go back and revisit the facts they're saying are the procedures followed which is I think what the bone of contention here is and this that goes back to this last decision is that maybe that the procedures weren't weren't followed so my point is that if the Appeals Board limits their discussion to procedural matters and are not in fact revisiting factual content that the that the Planning Board then it's totally appropriate thank you all [32:10] Matthew LaChance: Right is anyone aware of any mistakes that were made in this as far as the as the Planning Board [32:19] Mark Cormier: it goes I mean are any illegal I don't think that's something we should consider I don't think it's a part of this decision right I really don't Mark okay it's this like council Jarvi just talked about this is going forward it doesn't apply backwards in time right it doesn't okay all [32:41] Matthew LaChance: All right, I'm not gonna argue, okay? I didn't say anything, right? Go ahead, please. I just wanted to [32:52] Dennis Marble: I guess add on to Counselor Jarvey's statement. The way this is intended to be written or to go to go forward is again that any, we can set the criteria for what the review is supposed to be that the point that the Board of Appeals is going to see. So we can say which matters they can review, which ones they can, so we can really tail it, tailor this. And you're right, you know, it's not going to be a review on opinions and that it's going to be a review of the facts and the procedures of the of the case. So but again, that's that's up to, right, I'm sorry, right now it is up to the planning board to come up with those recommendations and you know and us to us to approve them. I [34:02] Matthew LaChance: guess what I'm trying, what I'm trying to get at is the planning board has to follow the zoning, correct? So in any case, the planning board isn't deciding, isn't playing god and saying we're gonna, we're gonna do this or we're not gonna do that. The, I wasting time [34:24] Unidentified staff member (code enforcement): The current ordinances sets out a mechanism for appeals currently and I think that this would just be added to that mechanism for appeals. [34:38] Matthew LaChance: I'm not trying to get in the weeds. I'm just talking about in general. Somebody brings something in front of the planning board. The planning board follows zoning to make the decision whether or not it's going to happen. Correct. So all right. That's all I wanted to make clear. Are we done? Anybody else? Roll call vote. We can start down there this time. Aye. Nay. What is that one? Absent. What are two? One absent. Next is managers report. Do you have one? I don't have one for tonight. Very good. Counselor comments, start with you this time. Counselor comments. I [35:46] Dennis Marble: was very impressed to read how much public contact and public involvement went on with our library this year and I want to congratulate the library staff on putting on an excellent program, especially the art project, actually all of town staff because it came together with a beautiful new building and so forth. So I think that's, I was very impressed reading that report. Just [36:19] Mark Cormier: want to remind the public every chance we get that the transfer station as you know it will be closed for a while beginning on October 13 I believe. I was limited to Thursday, Friday and Saturday, four hours I believe, with no demolition, no electronics, only household waste. So please look on the town website, ask around. We don't want people surprised with what they think is bad news at the last second. Thank you. [36:51] Walter Jakubas: And good night. I don't think they're doing brush either, is that right? No. [36:57] Matthew LaChance: Comment. Good night, Hamden. No comment. Good night, Hamden. No comment, as usual. For me, I will adjourn this meeting. At motion to adjourn the meeting, so move. Second. Approve. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.