BUCKFIELD — You may have heard the Bill Cosby routine about when he lost his job. "Well, I didn't lost it exactly," he intones with a rueful grin. "I mean, I still know where it is. It's just that when I go there now, there's somebody else doing it."
The town of Buckfield may be experiencing this same disconcerting feeling in regard to a five-acre parcel in the Hallie Estates subdivision.
The town has not exactly lost the five acres. They know to the last second of the final degree where it is. The problem is more complicated than that.
The dilemma is that with subdivisions, revisions to divisions, and multiple sales and re-sales of the subdivided lots, the town seems to have lost track of precisely who technically does, or even should, own those five acres.
Buckfield Planning Board Chairman Wes Ackley recounted at recent meetings of the board how Cynthia M. Dunnm Buckfield's town manager and code enforcement officer, had brought to his attention a possible violation of the Hallue Estates subdivision plan.
The original November 1, 1999, plan for the subdivision (listed as Plan #3245), which is adjacent to the Buckfield/Hebron town line on Route 124, called for three house lots to be accessible by Hallie Way, a dead-end road off Route 124. The remaining 72-plus acres was listed as additional land of the subdivision located at the rear of the tract, behind the three house lots.
Planning board minutes indicate that in February 2001 Hallie Estates developer Chuck Starbird asked for written assurance from the planning board that he could sell part of that remaining 72 "plus or minus" acres to his son, Tony, who owned Lot 2 of the subdivision.
The planning board sent Starbird a letter dated March 12, 2001, signed by then planning board vice-chair Judy Berg, which advised Starbird that he could sell a portion of Lot 4 to his son without violating the town's subdivision regulations, so long as the deeded portion abutted Lot 2. The board also added "amendments need to be made to the subdivision registration to accommodate reconfiguration of the subdivision."
Additional comments in planning board minutes indicate that the reconfiguration was necessary "to prevent subdivision later."
It appeared the board and Starbird negotiated a plan, described as "Revision 1" dated April 5, 2001, in which a five-acre strip was "to be conveyed to the owner of Lot 2," making in one lot with the existing 1.5 acres in that lot.
At an April 16, 2001, meeting of the board, Starbird submitted a paper copy of "Revision 1" of the Hallie Estates subdivision. Board members initialed changes to the 1999 plan and voted to "approve the reconfigured Hallie Estates subdivision subject to revisions to mylar as written on paper copy of the subdivision plan approved by members of the planning board on April16, 2001."
A copy of "Revision 1" was later submitted to the town office and signed by four board members: Diana Dunn, Bob Lipham, Wes Ackely and Lynette Bennett, on April 24, 2001.
The paper copy of "Revision 1" was registered in the Oxford County Registry of Deeds in June of 2001.
Relevant findings of fact from the April 16, 2001, planning board meeting state: "[The board is] creating a buildable lot on the remaining land now known as Lot 4. Five acres will be added to Lot 2 owned by Tony Starbird. No further division of any lot can occur without planning board approval."
On April 17, the very next day after the planning board agreed to the conveyance of five acres from Lot 4 to Lot 2, Chuck Starbird sold Lot 4 to Lisa A. Pugh and Lisa A. Brackville. This deed was recorded on April 19, 2001, and makes specific reference to both the original subdivision plan and "Revision 1."
In the opinion of the planning board, this reference clearly indicates that Pugh and Brackville did not purchase the five-acre parcel in question along with the majority of Lot 4, as the deed references the plan to detach that five-acre piece from the lot.
Later, on May 7, 2003, Tony and Kathy Starbird sold Lot 2, apparently now minus the transferred five acres, directly to Jesse G. Richter and Angela Cobisi. The deed for 1.5 acres makes reference to the original 1999 Hallie Estates subdivision plan (recorded as #3245), but not to "Revision 1" of that plan, in which the five acres were to be conveyed to Lot 2.
When contacted, Richter did not seem to believe that the extra acreage belonged to him.
"I never paid for it," he said. "As far as I'm concerned, that's Tony's."
There seems to be a question of whether the transfer of the five-acre piece from Chuck Starbird to Tony Starbird ever took place, and whether "Revision 1" was ever filed with the Oxford County Registry of Deeds.
"Has anyone contacted the landowners to see how they feel?" asked Berg.
Ackley replied that both former landowners indeed had been contacted.
"Tony did not seem to understand the problem," said Ackely. "and calls to Chuck have gone unanswered."
"Is it possible that Tony failed to record his deed?" asked Berg.
"He was asked about the deed," replied Ackley, before concluding, "He was non-committal.
"It was not apparent until this spring when tax bills went out," commented Ackely, referring to how Dunn discovered the issue of the five acres that never got attached to Lot 2.
"Somewhere along the line she realized that she did not have records of that land changing hands," Ackley said.
"Did she tax anyone for the land?" asked Berg.
"She taxed Tony," answered Ackley, "and Tony paid the taxes."
When questioned, Ackley was non-committal himself regarding how having been taxed for the land might affect ownership.
"It is possible that someone who is not going to end up owning it may have been paying taxes on it," he concluded.
There was no comment on whether this might lead to an abatement of some kind. Would taxing Starbird separately for the five-acre parcel after Lot 2 had been sold indicate some tacit approval of the town that this parcel was not a separate lot?
"No, I don't think so," said Ackely. "The fact that someone has paid taxes on a piece of land for years has no direct legal bearing on the ownership of that land.
"It's floating right now," continued Ackley, in referring to the five-acre parcel. "Maybe it could be argued to belong to Lot 4, but it is shown on the filed subdivision plan as being intended to be conveyed with Lot 2. That's how it exists on our records. That was the clear understanding with which we all left that [April 16, 2001] meeting."
Ackley does not believe that Starbird can retain ownership of the five-acre parcel.
"He has got to, we were very clear that we did not want any more lots being created within that land that had been part of the original study of the subdivision at the time. We have not reviewed the soil or wetlands down there.
"I would suppose that various things are possible, but he would first have to clear the slate. I doubt that he could come back and call that Lot 5. I think the planning board would simply say, 'No.' We have really got the runaround on this. I really do not see that as a possibility.
"Whether he actually created another lot in this case is questionable," Ackley continued. "On paper it is not a numbered lot. He has created an undesignated piece, which potentially can create a problem. It is not a huge alarm. It's just a problem that has to be solved.
Ackely identified the root of the problem as having been the planning board's willingness to accommodate Chuck Starbird, who had indicated a pressing need to get the changes approved as quickly as possible.
"The deed was not present and maybe that's the lesson to us," he said. "There was pressure there as he [Chuck Starbird] was saying, 'I've got to close on the property tomorrow,' although the idea had been there in place for a couple of months beforehand.
"Maybe as we do more of these transactions all related land transactions which are part of the subdivision should have to be in place before the planning board signs off on it.
"From the time one gets on a planning board it is a real learning process," Ackley continued. "Each time we do one of these subdivisions we get a little more knowledgeable."
Ackley also commented that subdivision issues have multiplied in frequency in recent years. He estimates that Buckfield has seen fewer than a dozen subdivisions in the last 20 years, although there have been three in the last three years alone.
Ackley has sent a letter to Tony Starbird seeking to clarify the status of the five-acre piece, which apparently is in limbo, and indicating that it needs to be combined with Lot 2 or Lot 4 to comply with the order in "Revision 1" that there be no further subdivision.
"The town is first asking him to make clear whether or not he conveyed the property. We are simply trying to get him to contact the town to state where he thinks the ownership of the property is at this point."
Just before concluding the latest planning board meeting, Ackley summed up the situation succinctly regarding the disputed five-acre parcel.
"It will take legal minds to sort it out," he said, "but it has to belong to one of them."
Neither Chuck nor Tony Starbird cold be reached for comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment