Sand Pond Campground Project OK’d, Contested

Sanford Planning Board members gave the green light to a campground development at Sand Pond last week, although a lawsuit is still pending against the development.

The board’s vote on Nov. 4 followed lengthy public comments for and against the proposal for 41 campsites in 4 phases, and other site improvements at Siddall Road and Country Club Road 2 in south Sanford. Neighbors have long objected to the proposal on the grounds of noise, appearance, and density.

The board approved all the orders regarding this application, with board member Lawrence Jackson abstaining from all votes because he was unable to attend a site walk. The approval comes with conditions, including submission of a full plan for the project by February 2027.

The lawsuit filed last summer seeks to stop the development on grounds that it violates deed restrictions stipulated by former owner Miriam Siddall when she sold lots on what is now Siddall Road, according to a Portland Press Herald story. Four sets of neighbors who are plaintiffs in the lawsuit claim the deeds carried common restrictions against commercial use, advertising and general unsightliness, according to the paper. The suit says those terms would apply to the 115 acres acquired by developer Michael Patterson, although Patterson disagrees, according to the paper.

The Sanford Springvale News reached out to Brian Dumont, president of Sand Pond Association, but he declined to comment and referred questions to lawyer Andy Sparks, who could not be reached by press time.

Before the vote at last week’s meeting, Chief Code Enforcement Officer Jamie Cole read multiple emails in favor of the campground to the board. One was from Mark Paterson, owner of Patco Construction and brother of applicant Patterson.

“Projects such as the one proposed will bring new additional tax dollars to the community and business sales and services from the campground patrons with relatively few additional costs to the city of Sanford,” Mark Patterson stated in his email.

Patterson said he believes that alternative uses for the land could be worse than the proposed campground, such as the building of 50 or more new houses to add to the ones his company has already built.

Many residents said they’re angry both at the development and at some of the public comments made about opponents.

Guy Chabot, a resident of Sand Pond Road, defended campground opponents against some comments made by Patterson, including that their opposition is an example of NIMBYism (not in my backyard).

“It’s all over their YouTube videos, some type of disparaging comment that we’re somehow abnormal that we don’t want a campground in our backyard,” Chabot said.

Holly Bennett, a neighbor of Chabot’s, also spoke in opposition to the proposal.

“I can’t put a trailer, I can’t put up a sign, I can’t clear cut my land. But another person can come in, in a rural residential zone, and put in a community pool, a barn, and a store only because it’s called a campground?” she said. “If it wasn’t called a campground, you could put none of those things there.” She pointed to concerns about safety at intersections on her road and about what she considers inadequate visual buffering of the site.

Planning Board Chairman Jace Clarke said buffering the site from the rest of the neighborhood is a challenge. Fencing was suggested, but the board doesn’t want to take away the natural rural charm of the area. Many residents said that the current natural buffering is far too unstable and would not be strong enough to serve to separate the development from the rural neighborhood.

“There’s not really a mechanism for a maintenance agreement to go in and maintain it over time. The trees get bigger, the underneath gets thinner, and 20 years from now there is zero buffer. That is with every project, every buffer requirement for every type of development; we don’t have that,” Clarke said.

In other action at the Nov. 4 meeting:

Mercy Chapel: The board voted unanimously to approve an application from Sebago Technics for a new building, expanded parking and other site improvements for Mercy Chapel Church, at 1861 Main St.

Nasson Development: Also unanimously approved was phase III of an apartment project on land formerly part of Nasson College in Springvale. This will add 13 more units to the development at 16 Barth Way.

Conditional uses: After hearing from many opponents, the board voted to continue a public hearing on a proposal to establish conditional uses that could enable two controversial projects – a biosolids plant and a data center – to move forward. The next meeting is set for Nov. 18.

The full meeting can be found on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52WlVZcptvo

Sand Pond Campground Project OK’d, Contested

Comments