NORRIDGEWOCK — Town planners are facing another retroactive permitting process, this time for a convenience store and gas station on the north end of the U.S. Route 201A bridge.

The business’ construction has been going on all summer — all with correct permits.

Recently, however, town officials said they learned the business owner and town code enforcement officer skipped a step in the authorization procedure.

In order to continue, the planning board says it must review the development to determine it complies with all appropriate regulations.

“We’re trying to be as amicable as possible while still maintaining the ordinance,” Planning Board Chairman Theodore Gilliam said.

Chris Kruse, owner of the property at 4 Madison Road, said he hopes a solution will be reached but maintains he did everything the code enforcement officer required.

“We’re hoping to work through it. It’s unfortunate to have to deal with that in addition to get a store up and going in this economy,” Kruse said. “I’ve got a stack of applications of people wanting work.”

Code Enforcement Officer Robert Dunphy said he issued the building permit based on information provided to him.

“I take what you put on the paper. I’m not an investigator. It’s not my job to chase down information,” he said.

The planning board has asked that Kruse retroactively undergo what’s called a site plan review process.

The review requires him to submit surveys of the land, the property’s deed, maps of buildings, a summary of existing or proposed easements, a statement of financial capacity, an erosion control plan and a description of proposed uses, among other things.

“Most of this stuff is common sense and minor,” Gilliam said, and Kruse has already provided much of the relevant information to the planning board.

Kruse, though, has not agreed to undergo the site plan review or pay its required fee, his attorney, David Slatery of Brann & Isaacson law firm, wrote in a Sept. 12 letter to the planning board.

The fee is 1 percent of the cost of the total development.

Kruse is “very concerned” that the planning board will “at this late date” require changes to the business, which has already been largely paid for and built, Slatery wrote.

The planning board will discuss its options at 6 tonight at the Town Office.

“I’m all for a business being there,” Gilliam said, but added the town’s rules still need to be enforced.

Others in town also support the business, including Alicia Jones and Eleanor Knox who live nearby. Jones said the store will make it easier for people without transportation to pick up basic items.

The crux of the issue centers on the total cost of the project. A site plan review is required when project costs exceed $150,000.

Kruse and Slatery interpret the town’s ordinance as saying the cost of land is not considered in the total cost. The planning board says land is included.

On June 23, Dunphy, the code enforcement officer, approved Kruse’s building permit application, which listed approximate cost of improvements to the facility as $96,000. The amount covers construction of new structures and the reconfiguration of the parking lot and driveway access, according to Slatery.

The sum does not include the cost of land, which Kruse, through his company Two Bucks Holdings, purchased in 2008 for $200,000.

Gilliam said because the land and other costs exceed $150,000, a site review process is required and the project should have gone to the planning board before construction started.

Kruse and his attorney maintain that the application required no information about the historical costs of the land and buildings.

“Had (the company) understood that it would need planning board approval, it would have sought such approval and/or have altered its construction in the first place,” Slatery wrote. “The planning board may not now undo what the town previously permitted after my client reasonably relied on the building permit and incurred the considerable costs of the project.”

Gilliam replied that the ordinance is clear. It defines the cost of development as “all costs associated with the project from its inception to its final completion including the cost of the land.”

Another layer of conflict involves neighbors of the property who have complained about possibly not being able to use an old road behind the store.

Town officials, however, question whether it’s still public.

“I have yet to see anything that says when the road was discontinued it was left as public right of way,” Town Manager Michelle Flewelling said.

Dunphy said if he made a mistake in granting the building permit, the planning board should fix it, and soon.

Kruse “came in, told me what the price is going to be,” Dunphy said. “It didn’t come over the $150,000, and it didn’t need to.”

The ordinance is partly to blame. “It’s not clear enough to some people,” he said. “Why would I put a business in jeopardy?”

Dunphy is working in Norridgewock on an on-call basis until the town can hire a new code enforcement officer.

He also serves as code enforcement officer in Madison, Anson, Embden and New Portland, is a Somerset County Commissioner and was recently confirmed to the board of the Land Use Regulation Commission, which oversees development in the unorganized territories.

In addition to that, he works as a welder and mechanic.

Norridgewock’s planning board also faces another retroactive permitting issue involving a septic system that Madison Electric Works installed in the Sandy River’s flood plain.

In that case, Dunphy issued the necessary permit when it should have gone to the planning board first. He later said he didn’t know of another town that got so deeply involved.

Madison Electric has applied for a retroactive permit. If it’s not approved, the system may have to be removed after the utility spent thousands of dollars on the project.

Flewelling said Dunphy was later removed from the Madison Electric project because he also works as code enforcement officer for Madison, where Madison Electric is based. The town wanted to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest even though there was never a ruling he had one, she said.

Erin Rhoda — 612-2368

[email protected]