Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
 
BOA Minutes 5/5/15
Town of Buxton  
Board of Appeals
Minutes
May 5, 2015

Recorded by Krystal Dyer

Members in attendance: Peter Leavitt, Scott Warchol, Patrick Hanna and Charlene Libby

Members not in attendance:  Stephen Heroux

Others in attendance: Lance Hanna

Peter Leavitt calls the meeting to Order at 7pm.

  • Charlene motioned to open the public hearing, seconded by Scot, a unanimous vote.
Tabled from the April 7th, 2015 meeting:  Dana Packard with The Saco River Theatre (SRT) is requesting a variance for a 6’, 8” addition for handicapped accessible restrooms.  The Theatre is located at 29 Salmon Falls Road; Tax Map 12, Lot 37.  
        Dana Packard began with the items the Board wanted him to address from the last meeting.  First was to be sure there was safe access for fire and emergency vehicles, along with public works vehicles for plowing.   Then to be sure pedestrians and vehicles can pass by safely.  The handicapped ramp and the awning extends past the proposed addition.  There was also a questions why build outward and not to the side.  Dana felt it would alter the character of the historic building. At the last meeting Dana was asked to determine the distance from the high water mark.  According to the Saco River Corridor Commission (SRCC) the build out point is 80 feet from the normal high water mark of the Saco River.  He also learned that anything within 300 feet requires a permit to expand up to 30% of the building volume.  The combined expansion is just under 30%.  SRCC has already approved this build out to the front.  This explanation cleared up Patrick’s questions.
  • Charlene motioned to close the public hearing, seconded by Scott. A unanimous vote.
Discussion from the Board - Charlene added that she measured the distance from the yellow garage to edge of the center of the road and found the existing garage is 1.5 feet closer than the addition will be.  There is also another residential dwelling further down that is just as close.  This satisfied Charlene’s concern with hardship number three, the general character of the neighborhood.  Peter confirmed this building is not used as a residential building.  There is further discussion on Article 4, Non-conforming structures.  Peter’s opinion is that if it gets approved by the SRCC, than he is okay with it.   Scott agrees if SRCC approved it, than he is satisfied also.
        The Board discusses the hardships: Charlene adds that this is a historic building, a public use facility that is used as a performing arts venue.  Since it has been in operation, they have always used port-o-potties.  This addition would enhance and add value to the building, which for the ‘reasonable return’ is does enhance the building.  In terms of the characteristics of the neighborhood, it is close to road, but there are other building and dwellings on the street that are closer to the road.  So it would not change the character of the neighborhood.  The building was built in 1897, because of the location, it was not caused by a previous owner.  The building was originally a Universalist Church, a silent movie house and then a grange hall.  
Scott gave a few suggestions if the addition was built on the side, but no issues since the Fire Chief and Public Works director approve.
Because it is not a residence, the applicant has to meet all four hardships.

Hardships:
  • The land in question cannot yield a reasonable return under the requirements of this ordinance.  The applicant stated: The lack of running water and indoor facilities forces the organization to close during the winter months.  Many elderly patrons, and those with disabilities are unable to attend events due to these limitations.  Also as an Actors Equity Association (AEA) Professional Theatre, the organization is required by AEA to provide indoor facilities to patrons and performers.
  • Peter asks all board members who feel the applicant has meet this hardship to raise their hand.  The vote passed with a 4 –0 vote.
  • The need for a variance is due to the unique circumstances of the property and not the general condition in the neighborhood.  The applicant stated:  As a non-profit performing arts center, The Saco River Theatre feels an obligation to meet the needs of its patrons, particularly those with disabilities, and the elderly.
  • Peter asks all board members who feel the applicant has meet this hardship to raise their right hand.  The vote passed with a 4 –0 vote.
  • The granting of a variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.  The architectural plan for the expansion is faithful to the original design of the building.  We believe that when the work is done, many will not notice the build-out from the outside.
  • Peter asks all board members who feel the applicant has meet this hardship to raise their right hand.  The vote passed with a 4 –0 vote.
  • These conditions are not the result of action taken by the applicant for a variance or a prior owner.  The applicant states: it might be argued that the hardship is due to inaction.  There were sub- standard facilities in the building when SRT began work there in 1990.  This proposal is for an overdue replacement system, with a necessary expansion to meet codes for a public building.
  • Peter asks all board members who feel the applicant has meet this hardship to raise their right hand.  The vote passed with a 4 –0 vote.
The variance is granted as applied for.   

The Board granted a front yard variance to build a 6’, 8”x 30’, 15” addition, to be built up to the road setback as depicted in the sketch map survey prepared by Maine Boundary Consultants, dated July 2, 2014.     

***

Patrick removed himself from the Board. The Board has a quorum of three with Peter, Charlene, and Scott in attendance.
Tabled from the April 7th, 2015 meeting:  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.
  • Peter motioned to open the public hearing, seconded by Charlene. Motion passed with a 3 - 0 vote.
Patrick is requesting a variance for a lot size reduction for John Hanna’s proposed parcel (tax map 7, lot 62-8) from a three (3) acre lot down to 56,230 sq. ft. lot.  
Patrick introduces two maps, #1 is with required acreage and #2 is with a proposed lot area reduction for lot 3. The main reason for tabling the meeting was the speculation that John Hanna caused the hardship. He did not create a hardship because they did have enough land.  A variance was granted in 2002 to reduce Patrick’s portion of the land from the five (5) acre zone to the three (3) acre zone.  The proposed plan dated Feb. 2015 marked as #1 indicates a proposal to split all dwellings into legal lots with three acres of land, but this would create a spaghetti lot for lot #2, which the ordinance does not allow.  

Franklands property (tax map 7, lot 62-12A) is a non-conforming lot and was supposed to have 40,000 sq ft. it had a foreclosure clause stating, if foreclosed the land would go back to the original owner, which was Jack Hanna.  This shrunk the Franklands property down to 37,346 sq. ft., making it impossible to sell their home.    Lot three should be 61,000 sq ft. and we are requesting to reduce it down to 56,230 sq. ft., which is still above the town’s requirement of 40,000 sq. ft. per lot.   Charlene is comfortable because even though it is reducing the square footage of a lot, it still has more than 40,000 sq. ft. and more land than other properties adjacent to this parcel.

  • Peter moved to close the public portion of the hearing, seconded by Charlene, the motion passed with a 3 – 0 vote.
There was further discussion amongst the Board on the four hardships:
        It was first believed that the applicant did not have to meet the first hardship, but after reviewing Article 6.2.B.2 they realized it pertained to setback and yard width requirements and they were required to review all four hardships:
Hardship one: The property is controlled by a trust. The trust controls these individuals from selling their property unless this variance is granted.   The homes are built and granted on the bases of the zoning district.  Everything is in good faith and they are trying to assist a neighbor so they can get a reasonable return also.

1.The land in question cannot yield a reasonable return under the requirements of this ordinance;
The applicant stated: Because it is composed of 3 lots and all associated buildings.  This entire parcel of land is on one deed.  In order for any lot to be sold, it would have to be separated by deed from the larger parcel.  This would require a variance because each lot individually does not meet the single-family dimensional requirement of the Buxton Zoning Ordinance.  At this time the owner of the entire parcel would like to separate each lot by deed, crating deeded lots.  
  • Peter asked the Board members who feel the applicant has meet the first hardship, please raise your right hand.  The passed with a 3 – 0 vote.

2. The need for a variance is due to the unique circumstances of the property and not the general condition in the neighborhood;
        The applicant stated: The locations of the buildings on lots 1-3 (see map) along with the shape of the entire parcel of land, make it impossible for each lot to be separated from the larger parcel and meet the single family dimensional requirement of the Buxton Zoning Ordinance because each property will be less than the required acreage.      Peter referenced the maps indicating the obvious difference.
  • Peter asked the Board members who feel the applicant has meet the second hardship, please raise your right hand.  A unanimous vote.
        3.The granting of a variance will not alter the essential character of the locality; and
        The applicant stated: The granting of the variance will not alter the character neighborhood because most of the surrounding lots are less than one acre.  In this case, lot #3 would be reduced to approximately 1.5 acres.

  • Peter asked the Board members who feel the applicant has meet the third hardship, please raise your right hand.  The passed with a 3 – 0
4.These conditions are not the result of action taken by the applicant for a variance or a prior owner.
The applicant stated: This hardship is not the action taken by the applicant or prior owner, but rather to the natural composition of the land.  The larger parcel, composed of lots 1-3, has significant portions that are low-lying wetland.  Because these parts are not buildable, residences were built on lots 1 -3 in locations that make it impossible for each residence to have its own lot meeting the single-family dimensional requirement of the Buxton zoning ordinance without reducing the size of lot #3 to approximately 1.5 acres.
  • Peter asked the Board members who feel the applicant has meet hardship #4, please raise your right hand.  The passed with a 3 – 0
  • The variance is granted as applied for allowing Lot #1 to be split to a 200,000 sq. ft., Lot #2 to be split off as a 120,000 sq. ft. lot, Lot #3 to be reduced to a 56,230 sq. ft. parcel, which allows 8,206 sq. ft. to be offered to an abutter (map 7, Lot 62-12A) as depicted on map #2 surveyed by Robert Libby, Jr. of BH2M dated Feb. 2015 and Article 6.2.B.2.
Approval of Minutes:    
April 7, 2015 - table to next meeting for a quorum

CEO Report

Approval of bills:  none at this time.
        
Communications – Maine townsman

Other Business – Has the town thought of having alternates for the Board?  The concern of not having a quorum?
       

Adjourn:
  • Motioned by Charlene, seconded by Scott to adjourn at 7:50 pm.  A unanimous vote.


   Approval Date:  __________


___________________________________                             ______________
Peter Leavitt, Vice Chair                                               Signature Date