By Emma Bouthillette 

Staff Writer

The Kennebunkport Planning Board has yet to move on from discussions regarding plans for a clubhouse to be included in the development proposal for the 87-acre Olde Port Village subdivision between North and School streets. 

Following a 3-2 vote that the clubhouse in the subdivision did not meet the definition of a club, the planning board sought counsel on their determination from Kennebunkport town attorney Amy Tchao from Drummond Woodsum. In a letter addressed to the planning board read at the previous meeting, Tchao agreed the clubhouse did not meet the town’s definition, but it could be considered as an accessory and reviewed as part of the subdivision rather than as a conditional use.

“The ordinance presents a question of fact. The planning board is the fact finder here, and the burden is on the applicant to prove this is an accessory use,” Tchao said at Wednesday’s meeting.

Planning board member Gordon Ayer expressed concern in regard to Tchao’s reference to the proposed building, pool and tennis courts as a “recreation facility” 23 times in her letter to the board. While recreation facility is defined in the land use ordinance as “a place designed and equipped for the conduct of sports,  leisure time activities and other customary and usual recreational activities, excluding boat-launching facilities,” Ayer said because the term is not included anywhere in the ordinance, it is not listed as a permitted use.

The term was taken directly from the state’s land use ordinance and adopted by voters on June 10 as a step in aligning Kennebunkport’s land use ordinance with the state’s, Tchao said. While “recreation facility” does not appear in Kennebunkport’s land use ordinance as a permitted use, Tchao said a few subsets of the definition do appear, such as “commercial recreation outdoor” and “commercial recreation indoor.”

“The definition of recreation facility is certainly broad, but the broader term would be allowed with specific subsets of the recreation facility,” Tchao said. “With the actual language, this clubhouse wouldn’t fit that definition either, but let the applicant make the argument and let you – the fact finders – make the decision.”

Planning board chairman David Kling asked each member of the board which elements of the proposal they had an issue with. Planning board members Leo Famolare and Ken Burford said they had no issues and previously voted in favor of the clubhouse, but planning board members John Hathaway and Ayer — who previously voted against the clubhouse — said while they were comfortable with plans for a pool and tennis courts, they are concerned about the building itself.

Developer Tom Macone of CDMK, LLC Properties said in the revised plan submitted to the planning board the building has been reduced to 3,500 square feet.

He emphasized condominium regulations would allow residents to have up to a 50-person gathering in the building, but the layout does not allow for large parties. Owners of the condominium units will not be allowed to install their own pools in order to keep the development low-impact, and Macone said by adding the recreation amenities to the subdivision he gives the residents a community resource.

“I’ve purchased the largest piece of property and haven’t maximized the development,” Macone said. “This is a low-impact development. I don’t want to destroy the very thing that makes this town what it is.”

“We need to decided whether all these elements are acceptable as accessory uses,” Kling said. “It is important for us to look at the functions proposed with in the building and if any would cause an adverse affect to the community.”

The board decided they wanted more information on what are considered accessory uses, as well as factual scenarios determined by Maine law, and will continue the preliminary review Oct. 15.