By Emma Bouthillette 

Staff Writer

Developer Tom Macone of CDMK, LLC Properties requested the Kennebunk Planning Board to table his application for the proposed 87-acre “Olde Port Village” subdivision following a 3-2 vote regarding a planned clubhouse on the property located between North and School streets.

Planning board member Gordon Ayer said the clubhouse does not meet the definition of a club, and is not permissible under the town’s land use ordinance. 

According to the land use ordinance, a club is defined as “any voluntary association of persons organized for fraternal, social, religious benevolent, recreational, literary, patriotic, scientific, or political purposes whose facilities are open to members but not the general public, and which is principally engaged in activities which are not customarily carried on for pecuniary gain.”

“I don’t believe this is voluntary. It is created by the condominium association, and the ordinance doesn’t permit this type of building,” Ayer said. “I’m not saying they couldn’t have a pool or tennis court with an accessory building, but the recreation building designed for functions is not in keeping with the residential ordinance.”

Planning board member Ken Burford disagreed with Ayer’s interpretation and said people who choose to purchase a condominium agree to maintenance and association fees for benefits such as the clubhouse. 

“I’ve had discomfort about the road we’ve been going down calling this a clubhouse for conditional use. I’m questioning whether we’re going about this the right way,” said Planning Board Chairman David Kling after the vote, suggesting the board seek legal advice in regard to interpretation of the ordinance. “What if the things we’re talking about doesn’t fit under the definition? I want to assure we are applying the land use ordinance correctly.”

The planning board discussed the possibility for the proposed building to be classified under another definition, but while it fit the definition for recreation facility, Kling said that type of conditional use was not allowed by the zoning ordinance.

“I regret this event has occurred,” Kling said. “Reevaluate the property and take some time out. We’ll decide what to do when you come back to the board.”

Following the vote and a five-minute recess Macone’s representative architect Bob Metcalf of Mitchell and Associates said, “We have decided the project has been peeled back so much at this point we want to take a look back. We are requesting to table our discussions right now and take another look at the property.”

The 87-acre parcel, assessed under Maine’s tree growth program at $155,100, was purchased from the Frink family by CDMK, LLC Jan. 3, 2006 for $3.8 million. The town assessor estimated a $60,000 penalty when Macone began developing the property, removing it from the tree growth program.

Macone said he has spent an additional $360,000 during the planning process. His original proposal included a 3-unit multiplex, a 4-unit multiplex, a 5-unit multiplex and 34 duplexes—totaling 80 units—and a clubhouse with swimming pool, tennis courts, fitness center, media room and great room. When Macone addressed the board, he said he has invested $360,000 in the planning process of this development over the past two years. 

“I’ve really worked hard to make this work for the town and people. I’ve got to look out for my family. I don’t like to discuss money in front of the board like this, but they don’t care about my bottom line,” Macone said. 

While Macone did not completely withdraw his application, he said he needed to rethink his plans for the property. 

After the meeting, Macone said he wanted to stop the direction the plan was going in because without a clubhouse the development becomes “just a big duplex neighborhood.”

“We’ve been working at this for 30 months now—trying to make it unique,” Macone said. “I think we’ve shown nothing but good faith and working with the zoning laws. We want to build a product that is good for the town, good for us and good for the abutters.”

Macone said his decision to move the clubhouse away from a neighbor’s property line—losing two units in the process—is just one example of considering what is good for all parties.

“Based on the board’s decision, without this component of the project, it changes what we are trying to do,” he said. “I want to back up and take a hard look at the direction we are going in. This is not what I intended.”