Town of Buxton Board of Appeals
Minutes
Tuesday, January 6, 2015 at 7:00 p.m.
Recorded by: Krystal Dyer
Members in attendance: Stephen Heroux, Peter Leavitt and Scott Warchol
Members not in attendance: Charlene Libby
Others in attendance: Code Officer Fred Farnham
Stephen Heroux called the meeting to order at 7pm.
Longtime Board member Jack Hanna passed last month, he served this Board and the Town well. He will be greatly missed.
Stephen proceeds to inform the applicant of the meeting procedures.
- Stephen open the public hearing to hear a variance request from Saco River Dentistry representing Nick Roy, seconded by Scott the motion passed with a 3 – 0 vote.
Nick Roy of Saco River Dentistry is requesting a front yard variance for a proposed addition to the dental office. The parcel is located at 440 Narragansett Trail; Tax Map 5, Lot 47B. The parcel is located in the Business/Commercial District.
Mr. Roy is proposing to expand the building at 440 Narragansett Trail. The objective it to add more opportunity to the dental office. The proposed expansion goes within the 40 foot setback from Route 202. The main part of the building currently encroaches the setback. The addition would come in line with the main part of the building. The septic is located in the rear, the barn in on the left and very inefficient for expansion. The main part of the building already encroached the property line on the right side. This is the only feasible area. it would add about 10 to 12 feet past the setback line. The patient flow and parking lot has been expanded behind the barn in anticipation for the expansion. It supports the number of patients and employees. The current septic is old and they do have information on potentially expanding if needed. Dental oratories do not require much water, so adding two additional oratories should not increase the water usage. The only
additional water usage would be from the public restroom used by the patients.
Stephen addresses a conflict of interest issue: He and his wife use Saco River Dentistry for their dental services. He does not feel this is a conflict and it will not impair his decision making on this case. Peter and Scott agree and have no issues.
Stephen does an overview of the application; you are looking to expand the building, it is a nonconforming structure on a nonconforming lot. It can be expanded a certain percentage according to Article 4.2.C.1. You are requesting to expand past the front yard setback and carry the existing encroachment that the main building has now. Under Section 4 you are allowed to expand, however any expansion has to meet the expansion setbacks. Mr. Roy is requesting a 12-foot front yard setback.
Questions from the Board:
Scott questions the number of parking spaces? Mr. Roy answered 26 spaces total, ten for staff and 16 for patients. With two full time and one part time dentist on site.
Stephen clarified that if a setback variance is approved, they still have to meet all ordinance requirements in Sections 8, 10 and 11.
Scott questions if the parking spaces located in the front, are in the front setback. Mr. Roy said they are not.
Summarize the hardship questions:
- The land in question cannot yield a reasonable return under the requirements of this ordinance; the other areas of the building all have hardships. In the rear there is parking and existing septic, to the left is the barn, which is not suitable for a dental office, and on the right the building already encroaches the sideline setback line.
- The need for a variance is due to the unique circumstances of the property and not the general condition in the neighborhood; the property is a non-conforming lot.
- The granting of a variance will not alter the essential character of the locality; the addition of the building will not change the character of the existing property.
- These conditions are not the result of action taken by the applicant for a variance or a prior owner. This addition has no bearing on the applicant or the prior owner.
Having no further question or comments from the Board or Code Enforcement Officer and no public in attendance;
- Stephen moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Scott. Passed with a 3 – 0 vote.
Stephen concluded that the applicant is looking for a variance for a 12-foot encroachment into the front yard setback. Other than the general locality and how the addition will impact on the locality. The number of parking spaces and septic will have to be met. This type of variance are the most difficult variances to work with. He is not asking to expand the addition any further than the main part of the building, which opens up a gray area. it will not affect the locality itself.
- Stephen moved to re-opened the public hearing, Scott seconded, the motion passed with a 3 – 0 vote.
Question for Code Officer: The fire chief is not yet aware of or have any concerns about the entrance with the new addition.
- Stephen closed the public hearing, seconded by Scott. Approved with a 3 – 0 vote
There was further discussion on whether it meets hardship one. This one is difficult to meet. The only gray area is that they are not going past the existing main building and whether the addition effects the total yield value of the property. Could this section of the road have been widened causing the setback to move closer to the building?
- Motioned by Stephen, seconded by Scott re-open the public hearing. Unanimous vote.
Fred has a copy of the Department Of Transportation maps dated December 1976, indicating that Narragansett Trail from Salmon Falls Bridge to Duck Pond Corner was re-graded, and widened on the curve area to more than 66 feet wide. This has reduced the distance to the building pushing the 40 foot setback closer to the building. This is also one of the original buildings that was here long before the ordinance.
Peter questioned the condition of the existing leachfield. Mr. Roy has plans to eventually update. Peter was thinking if another leachfield was installed, then the addition could be expanded out back over the old leachfield. Again, this current proposal is a reasonable expansion and this is a business not a residence.
- Motioned by Stephen to close the public hearing, seconded by Scott, a unanimous vote.
There was further discussion on hardship one.
The Board voted on the hardships:
- The land in question cannot yield a reasonable return under the requirements of this ordinance – the vote passed with a 2 –1. Case one is met.
- The need for a variance is due to the unique circumstances of the property and not the general condition in the neighborhood; if you feel the applicant has met the hardship, passed with a 3 – 0 vote.
- The granting of a variance will not alter the essential character of the locality; if you feel the applicant has met the hardship, passed with a 3 – 0 vote.
- These conditions are not the result of action taken by the applicant for a variance or a prior owner; if you feel the applicant has met the hardship, passed with a 3 – 0 vote.
The applicant has met the four cases of hardship and have the ability to grant the variance.
- Motion to grant the variance for Saco River Dentistry for an expansion as detailed on the drawing submitted, not to exceed the existing frontage of the existing building and meet all Articles 8, 10 and 11. The vote is 2 – 1, the variance is granted.
Approval of Minutes:
October 7, 2014
- Stephen approve the minutes of October 7th as written, seconded by Scott, a 3 – 0 vote of approval.
CEO Report: none at this time.
Approval of bills: Approve to pay Portland Press $35.15 for legal ads.
- Stephen, seconded by Peter to pay $35.15 to Portland Press Herald; a 3 – 0 vote to approve.
Communications
Maine Townsman – November & December 2014 issues
Other Business
2015/2016 Budget request
Will make the same request $250 for supplies
50 for miscellaneous
For a total of $300
Update on the last meeting: It was an administrative appeal that ended in a 2 to 2 vote and we had to get our attorney’s response. The letter was sent to the applicant the following day stating they were not able to meet the standards required to get the Administrative Appeal.
Ordinance amendment update: Stephen met with the Planning Board reword Article 4. The Town attorney has reviewed and made a few amendments and now it is ready for a town vote in June.
Stephen motioned to adjourn the meeting at 7:30, it was a unanimous vote.
Approval Date: __________
___________________________________ ______________
Stephen Heroux, Chair Signature Date
| 
