Town of Buxton
Board of Appeals
Tuesday, April 7, 2015 at 7:00 p.m.
Minutes
Recorded by: Krystal Dyer
Members in attendance: Stephen Heroux, Charlene Libby, Scott Warchol and Patrick Hanna.
Members not in attendance: Peter Leavitt
Stephen called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. and gave an overview of the proceedings.
- Stephen motioned to open the public hearing to hear a variance request for The Saco River Theatre at 7:06 pm, seconded by Charlene, the motion passed with a 4 – 0 vote.
Public Hearing: Dana Packard with The Saco River Theatre is requesting a variance for a 6 x 8 addition for handicapped accessible restrooms. The Theatre is located at 29 Salmon Falls Road; Tax Map 12, Lot 37.
Dana Packard is requesting a 6’, 8” x 36’ build out addition toward Salmon Falls Road for the construction of handicapped accessible public restrooms. The current handicapped ramp protrudes about a foot past the existing building, closer to the road. The new ramp will be equal with the 6’, 8” proposed addition.
Dana was unable to point out the 100-foot shoreland setback from the high watermark of the river. Stephen adds that part of the process for the new bathrooms is to have approval from Saco River Corridor Commission, Health and Human Services and Department of Environmental Protection. DEP gave approval based on the fact that the building is not within the 100 feet of the high water mark. Stephen asks “Is any of the structure that you are looking to expand to, within the 100-foot portion?” From a diagram that Code Officer Fred Farnham had, he was able to indicate the front of the building is 109-feet. The 100 foot line is right at the end of the existing building.
The building is right on the right of way. The distance from the building to the road is referenced on a map prepared by Maine Boundary Consultants dated July 2, 2014. Dana indicated that the real right-of-way is further away from the building. Now they can park 2 or 3 cars with the front facing toward the building, but with the addition, they will have to park parallel.
Dana added that plan “B” is to put the addition to the side of the building, but this option from a construction standpoint, works nicely. They have authorization from SRCC for a holding tank at this point, but are hoping to have a replacement septic system. There is evidence there was a septic there previously.
Stephen asked Fred if the fire chief had seen this request and if there are any other business structure that are 7-feet from the road frontage in Town. Moderation Center, Depot Street,
Dana informed the Board that the Architect Michael Chesnut, did speak to the fire chief in reference to whether they would need a sprinkler system or not.
Having no questions from the audience Stephen closed the public hearing.
- Motioned by Stephen, seconded by Charlene to close the public hearing. The motion passed with a 4 – 0 vote.
Discussion from the Board – The applicant will have to meet the 4 cases of hardship.
Stephens’s concern is whether there are other options, in lieu of having it that close to the street and would like the Fire Chiefs input. The 100-foot point is a factor, but documentation shows it is not within that area.
Charlene wants to support a bathroom in the theater, but this proposal would bring the building so close to the road. This brings safety issues with the crest of the hill, kids, walkers and bikers. Dana adds it is not as close as it seems.
- Scott motioned to open the public hearing to offer more options and details, seconded by Charlene, motion passed with a 4 –0 vote.
Stephen offered Dana, the Board is having some concerns and limitations, would he consider withdrawing or tabling the application until the next meeting and possibly bring more options to the Board, or we can decide tonight with the information before us.
The Theater is trying to retain the character of the building, which is the main reason to go this route. Dana requested to table the application for one month. The Board recommends getting a letter from the Fire chief stating he does not have a concern with the orientation of the proposed addition to the street.
- Motioned by Stephen to close the public hearing, seconded by Charlene, a 4 –0 vote.
- Motioned by Stephen to table the application for Saco River Theatre until the next meeting, seconded by Charlene. A unanimous vote.
Patrick recused himself from the board for the next application.
Patrick Hanna of 38 Autumn Street is requesting a variance for a reduction in the residential single-family dimensional requirement. Tax Map 7, Lots 62-8 & 62-24.
- Motioned by Stephen to open the public hearing to hear a variance request from Patrick Hanna, seconded by Charlene, confirmed with a unanimous vote.
Patrick’s father, Jack Hanna purchase the 3-acre property at 36 Spring Street in 1980. Removed the mobile home and build a house. He later purchased a 8.5 acre abutting parcel in 1992. All three of his sons built homes on this parcel. In 2002 Patrick was granted an administrative appeal for a lot size reduction due to no definite zone boundary line. This reducing his lot from the 5-acres zone down to 3-acre zone. The houses were built up on the highland, because of the wetland in the back.
Patrick tried to purchase 2-acres from an abutter, but they were not interested in selling. With the land being in a family trust, Patrick wishes to divide the land giving each the dwellings its own acreage. He would like Jack’s house to remain in the family trust allowing them to rent or sell and reducing it down to 1.68 acres. This is Fred’s recommendation. This is in a neighborhood with very small lots.
Charlene reviewed the Cluster section of the ordinance, questioning if a portion of the property could reduce the size of the lots due to wetland on the property. Would not make any difference – could have a smaller lot but still need to meet the 5 acre requirement.
Another brothers lot was deeded incorrectly with over 5-acres (should have been five), there will be a corrective deed to give the extra back to the Trust. They are trying to avoid spaghetti lots. The ROW takes away a half acre.
- Charlene moved to close the public hearing, seconded by Stephen at 7:50 p.m. unanimous vote.
Discussion from the Board:
Stephen talked about how this presentation makes sense and is the most sufficient way to split the parcel, but is concerned that they are creating a subdivision. Charlene is not concerned due to it being all the same family. Stephen added that he is more comfortable with separating the original home with a 55,000 sq. ft. parcel and leaving the other parcel in place for five years. Charlene is uncomfortable with the 4th hardship; ‘These conditions are not the result of action taken by the applicant for a variance or a prior owner.’
- Stephen motioned to open the public hearing at 8:01p.m., seconded by Charlene, unanimous vote.
Lance clarifies if the ‘previous action’ has to do with the garage, there was a land swap with a previous abutter. All four houses received permits through the town on one lot, which still had to have the minimum square footage. Patrick and Lance are just trying to do the right thing for the neighbor, while protecting their homes and the liability.
Stephen suggests making lot #3 a conforming lot under the Trust, and leave lots #1 & #2 in one lot in Patrick and Lance’s names. This would separate them from the liability concern from the Trust. Patrick pointed out that this would be a temporary fix, it still would not resolve the issue.
Charlene read from Jack Hanna’s findings of facts for the administrative appeal in 2002, “The applicant understands that the properties can not be sold separately unless there are changes to the ordinance.”
- Charlene motioned to close the public hearing, seconded by Stephen. A unanimous vote.
Discussion of the Board:
Stephen review the options with the forth case of hardship being the toughest to approve. They can create the 3 acre lot for the original home and keep other two homes together on one lot. It’s a tough case. Possibly an attorney could construct some language into the trust to alleviate the concerns.
- Stephen motioned to open the public hearing, seconded by Charlene, with a unanimous vote.
Stephen read the options:
Stephen offered three options:
1. can vote on it tonight and have the resolution, cannot re-submit.
2. can be tabled to next month and submit more information,
3. or withdraw and come back at another time.
If the Boards decision was appealed it would go to superior court.
Patrick requested to table the application for a month.
- Stephen motioned to close the public hearing, seconded by Charlene. A unanimous vote.
- Motion by Stephen, seconded by Charlene to table the variance request for Patrick Hanna until next month. A unanimous vote. The motion carries.
Patrick returned to the Board.
Approval of Minutes:
January 6, 2015
- Motioned by Scott, seconded by Stephen to approve the January 6, 2015 minutes as written 2 - 0 – 1, Charlene abstained, Peter was absent.
CEO Report: none
Approval of bills: Approve to pay Portland Press $39.44 for legal ads.
- Motioned by Stephen, seconded by Charlene, the motion passed with a 4 – 0 vote.
Communications
Maine Townsman – January, February & March editions
MMA – bring to next meeting – Stephen will review and bring to next meeting.
Other Business:
Scott brought up a point under 4.2.C.1, ‘The Board of Appeals in reviewing an application for an expansion shall determine that the proposed changes are consistent with all applicable standards contained in Section 8.2. and Articles 10, 11, and 14 of this Ordinance.’ Should we (the Board) be reviewing these Articles individually before we make a decision? Fred is the one who is responsible for these portions of the ordinance. Stephen references those sections of the articles if applicable, in the motions. But the board can go through each one individually. It would be time consuming for each fact. Stephen is comfortable making it part of the condition.
Discussion: Charlene thought they already did go through the requirements, for instance, around the pond area. They do not do it on every case, in most cases we try to word the variance so it is as narrow as possible. Stephen believes they are all set. Scott said he sees the word ‘shall’ and with Fred reviewing the application, is comfortable. The Board will continue to proceed but will reference in the future.
Patrick and Scott attended the MMA workshop: Patrick said they asked about the most recent variance at dental office, MMA declared they did not have to go to the BOA. Because it was non-conforming within the 30% and was not protruding further past a portion of the building. The board discussed further.
Stephen would like to check with MMA Legal “if the structure is already non-conforming in a setback can it expand as long as you do not encroach in the setback any further?”
Adjourn.
- Stephen motioned to adjourn at 8:30 pm, seconded by Charlene a unanimous vote.
Date approved__ ____
________________________________ ___________________
Stephen Heroux, Chairman Date
| 
