APPLETON, Maine — After two lawsuits, six years of legal wrangling and tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees paid so far by local taxpayers, not much is clear in the matter of the illegal Appleton house.
Except, that is, the frustration and anger of many residents of this small Knox County town, who said at a public hearing Thursday night they believe they have been placed in an unfair, expensive position with little guidance by town officials. The rental property was built several years ago in violation of local zoning ordinances.
On Tuesday, June 9, townspeople will vote by secret ballot to decide whether they want to let the house remain on its nonconforming parcel and accept $2,500 from its owner as a penalty. Because two of the three Appleton selectmen have recused themselves from the matter because of connections to the builder, residents at the hearing said they want to see more leadership, perhaps by adding more selectmen to the board.
“If we had known the very simple facts of this case at the get go, none of us would have spent $33,000 of taxpayer’s money,” Heather Wyman said during the hearing at the Appleton Village School. “I’m frustrated, and I’d like to see more transparency about how town business is conducted.”
The saga of the house began in 2008, when the town auctioned off a 0.18 acre lot in the village center for $4,100 to builder Jacob Boyington, who owns Appleton Ridge LLC. The following year, he obtained a building permit from the town to construct a two-bedroom rental house — though abutting neighbors challenged his right to do so from the beginning. They argued that under local ordinances the lot was too small and the house would be built too close to the road.
Paul Gagnon, one of those abutting neighbors, said Thursday night that Boyington took portions of his own land to build the house and that Boyington’s new septic system contaminated his well, which had been “misappropriated” during construction. In 2011, Gagnon hired a surveyor to sort out the boundary situation and ended up getting the well back.
“No one should have to go to the lengths we have when someone wants to ignore rules,” Gagnon wrote in a letter he gave to hearing attendees.
Boyington’s attorney, Christopher MacLean of Camden, said at the hearing that his client relied on the advice of the then town code enforcement officer, who no longer is employed in Appleton. Boyington attended the hearing but let his lawyer talk for him.
“In every stage [Boyington] has followed the steps he was supposed to. I understand people disagree with the permits he was given,” MacLean said. “That’s the beauty of democracy. Everyone in this town has a vote.”
In the abutting neighbors’ case, Knox County Superior Court Justice Jeffrey Hjelm has ordered Appleton to rescind Boyington’s building permit and ruled that the town’s zoning board of appeals erred in granting him a zoning variance. Last year, the town’s new code enforcement officer ordered Boyington to comply with the town ordinances, saying she didn’t know how that could be accomplished without the house being razed or moved.
The abutting neighbors’ lawsuit cost Appleton taxpayers a total of $28,479. This winter, the town filed its own lawsuit against Appleton Ridge Construction to get Boyington to comply with local ordinances. Legal fees in that case have cost taxpayers $4,733 to date, according to the selectmen.
Many residents at Thursday’s meeting said the $2,500 offered by Boyington was not enough to compensate the town for the legal trouble, using words such as “miniscule” and “insulting” to describe the sum.
“It would be very extraordinary for a town to settle for something this low,” Kristin Collins, who lives in Appleton and practices municipal law elsewhere, said.
Dan Wyman, another attorney who lives in Appleton, said he foresees more legal trouble for the town if the residents vote to accept the consent agreement Boyington offered. Neighbors Paul and Rita Gagnon and Lorie and Patrick Costigan have battled for years in court over the home’s construction. Their attorney said Thursday that if the town accepts the consent agreement, it is very likely they will challenge that decision.
“The purpose of a settlement is to prevent future litigation,” Wyman said.
Resident Wendy Thatcher-Hall said she doesn’t like the precedent the town would set if residents vote in favor of the consent agreement.
“I have a really hard time if we have a law on the books and people don’t adhere to it,” she said.
Gagnon said during the hearing he is urging residents to turn down the proposed consent agreement.
“I’m not done fighting yet, and I never will be,” the retired Marine said.