BRUNSWICK

The Brunswick Town Council voted narrowly Monday to allow the town manager to execute a purchase and sales agreement of tax-acquired Mere Point property, a decision described by one councilor as a shameful act.

The 5-4 vote comes despite a suit pending in Cumberland County Superior Court over whether the council followed municipal law when it previously voted to sell property at 946 Mere Point Road.

Councilor Steve Walker said rushing to sell the land, owned by the citizens of Brunswick, is a slap in the face to those who worked on the comprehensive plan, the town committees who voiced their opinion in keeping the land a public resource and to the unprecedented number of people who petitioned to explore options for the site. He warned the town will likely never again have the opportunity to create public access on Mere Point.

The decision highlighted deep divisions within the council.

“I hope rushing the sale of the land will have ramifications in the voting booth in the next election,” Walker said, apologizing to residents of Brunswick and adding he was ashamed of the decision.

Councilor Sarah Brayman agreed, saying it was difficult watching the sale go forward.

Councilors Jane Millett and Dan Harris said there was no reason to sell the land before a decision was reached in the civil case.

In defending his vote to proceed with the sale, Councilor John Perreault disagreed with the notion that the decision was rushed. The council had voted nine months ago to move forward with the sale. “It has been a long process,” he said.

Following a failed attempt to have the land be turned into a public park, Brunswick Citizens for Collaborative Government sued in February, claiming the council violated municipal law by failing to set a referendum vote after a petition was circulated and presented to the council. The council voted 5-4 to sell the property in September 2016, and voted 7-2 to do so without considering the petition in February.

The suit alleges the town’s narrow reading of the town charter has a chilling effect on citizens’ First Amendment rights to initiate an ordinance.

The town argues the thrust of the town’s argument centers around the fact that a council can act in two ways — either through an ordinance, which is an ongoing law and subject to challenge via petition; or through an order, which is a one-time action and not open to petition.

Town attorney Stephen Langsdorf argues the decision to sell the property was an order, and therefore, not subject to be overturned by referendum. The only way for the order to be changed, he said, is for the council to voluntarily put the decision to a citizen vote, which they are not obligated to do.

The actions of the council in February could still be ruled on by the court. David Lourie, the plaintiffs’ attorney, said last week he will take the case to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court if necessary, adding the town destroyed the right to a citizens’ initiative.

The four-acre parcel came under town ownership in 2011 for nonpayment of taxes.

Residents have spoken in recent weeks at council meetings, asking the town to delay selling the property until a ruling is issued. Lourie said the briefing schedule will not be completed for another couple months, and then it is unclear on how much time Justice Lance Walker will take in deciding the merits of the case.

The land was tax-acquired in 2011, and is listed for sale at $335,000. The description of the parcel on real estate website Trulia says it is a westerly-facing waterfront lot on Maquoit Bay, and that subdivision is possible. The description continues to read that the existing structure on the property is in need of major renovation, and offers grandfathered benefits. The potential buyer of the property was not named at the meeting.

Code Enforcement Officer Jeffrey Hutchinson confirmed the structure on the property has a grandfathered status regarding its proximity to the shoreline, as it was constructed before the town’s zoning ordinance was created. The building sits 90 feet from the shore, and the setback requirement for new buildings is 125 feet. The lot could be subdivided into two pieces, with the requirements that each parcel be 20,000 square feet in size.

The Times Record Sustaining Sponsor
We believe a community must be informed to thrive. bowdoin.edu