TOWN OF GORHAM
BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 15, 2001
The February 15, 2001 regular meeting of the Gorham Board of Appeals was held in the auditorium at the Gorham High School.
Roll Call: Present: Chairman Mark Stelmack; Board members Audrey Gerry, Peter Trail, David McCullough, Owens McCullough, and John Engel; the Town Clerk, and the Code Enforcement Officer
Absent: Board member Michael Webb
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the Minutes of the January 11, 2001 meeting as printed, distributed and corrected. 6 yeas.
Appeal #01-02 – The appeal of Ted and Stephanie Smith requesting a 7 foot rear line variance for an existing 10 foot by 12 foot deck on property they own at 22 Douglass Street (Map 106, lot 24) which is in the Urban Residential District.
Ted Smith appeared on behalf of this appeal. He explained that when they purchased the house they did not realize that the deck extended into the rear line setback. In response to questions from Board members he stated that the deck was there when he purchased the house; that it was built in the mid 1970’s; and that the house and garage are grand fathered but because there was no record of the deck being built it was not.
George Deering, abutter, also spoke in favor of this appeal.
There was no other public comment and the public hearing closed.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to grant approval of this 7 foot rear line variance. 6 yeas.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer. 6 yeas.
Appeal #01-03 – The appeal of Gregory and Debora Cuffey requesting a permit for enlargement of a non-conforming structure, namely the addition of three dormers to expand by volume the single family dwelling which they own at 176 Flaggy Meadow Road (Map 38, lot 5) which is in the Suburban Residential District.
Gregory Cuffey spoke on behalf of this appeal. He explained that he recently purchased this house and wished to add on to the back.
There was no public comment and the public hearing closed.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to grant approval of this enlargement of a non-conforming structure. 6 yeas.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer. 6 yeas.
Appeal #01-04 – The appeal of Pauline Segal requesting a 40 foot front line setback variance for an existing single family dwelling she owns at 382 Ossipee Trail (Map 77, lot 12) which is in the Rural District.
Pauline Segal spoke on behalf of this appeal. She explained that she has sold the house and the bank survey showed this need for a 40 foot front line setback variance.
In response to questions from Board members she stated that the house was built in 1982; that a builder built the house; that the car port is quite small, just wide enough for a car.
There was no public comment and the public hearing closed.
In response to questions from Board members the Code Enforcement Officer stated that his office does not know if there was an occupancy permit issued for this house, there is no record of one but the files are sparse for the early years; and that there has been no change in the setback.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to grant approval of the appeal for a 40 foot front line setback variance. 5 yeas. 1 nay (Traill)
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer. 6 yeas.
Appeal #01-05 – The appeal of Frank D. Grondin requesting a permit to expand by volume a non-conforming dwelling by adding a full length dormer on the west side and two small dormers on the east side of the single-family residence owned by him at 469 Ossipee Trail (Map 76, lot 22) which is in the Suburban Residential/Manufacturing Housing District.
Frank Grondin, contractor, appeared on behalf of this appeal. He explained that he did not own the property, Russ Brackett did but that he was the contractor for the proposed changes. He explained that the footprint of the house is not being changed.
There was no public comment and the public hearing closed.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve this expansion of a non-conforming dwelling. 6 yeas.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer. 6
Appeal #01-06 – The appeal of David and Katrina Brown and Design Dwellings requesting that the Board reverse the decision of the Code Enforcement Officer whereby he ruled that no occupancy permit would be issued for a single-family dwelling at Darrin Drive (Map 21, lot 1.001) until the CEO has an accurate recorded deed certifying adequate frontage as proof of adequate (200 foot) road frontage as detailed in the building permit.
Prior to discussion and voting on this appeal Owens McCullough stated that Design Dwellings is a customer of his employer but that he had not worked on this project and he did not feel that his judgment would be impaired because of it. The Board agreed and Mr. McCullough continued to be active on the Board.
Susan Duchaine, President of Design Dwelling, spoke on behalf of this appeal. She explained that David Brown’s parents owned property abutting Design Dwellings property and that they gave a lot of that property to David and Katrina Brown so they could build a home. The home was to have its frontage on Quincy Road but the Code Enforcement Officer wanted the road to be built before issuing an occupancy permit. The Code Enforcement had added conditions to the building permit that stated an accurate recorded deed had to be submitted before the occupancy permit would be issued. Because Quincy Drive has not been completed the Brown’s parents issued a second deed to them for an adjoining lot to give them frontage on Darin Drive. This was not sufficient for the Code Enforcement Officer so a third deed
was obtained from a neighbor, Mr. Seger. This deed is not recorded and Mr. Seger does not wish it to be recorded. This deed gives the Brown’s the 200 feet frontage necessary. When Quincy Drive is built their frontage will be from that road.
In response to questions from Board members Ms. Duchaine responded that there are no other houses built in the development; that a bond for the construction of the road was not allowed in this case; and that Darin Drive is a private way.
Natalie Burns, Attorney representing the Code Enforcement Officer spoke stating that the condition on the building permit had to be appealed within 30 days and it was not, therefore this appeal is not timely. She also stated that the Browns had no legal right to utilize the road because they are not in the subdivision and they have a house with not enough frontage on an approved road. In response to questions from Board members she stated that it was not possible for the Town to hold the deed and not record it because the building permit clearly stated that it must be recorded; that the difference between a recorded deed and a nonrecorded deed was that a recording was required to put people on notice; that this lack of deed recording was the only thing stopping the issuance of
the certificate of occupancy; that it is reasonable and customary to expect a deed to be recorded although there is no law requiring the recording.
Ms. Duchaine responded by stating that Ms. Burns was talking about the wrong deed. When the building permit was issued it referred to the second Brown deed, not to the Seger deed. She then went on to explain the three different deeds and their timing; that there was no law requiring a deed to be recorded; that Mr. Seger did not want to record the deed because of his age and that there was no problem for her to give the Board a copy of the easement.
Ms. Burns then stated that the building permit should not have been issued in the first place and that the Brown’s had no legal right because they are not part of the subdivision.
When asked about the timetable for Quincy Drive construction Ms. Duchaine responded that it is passable but it will probably be four years before the road is completed to town standards and transferred to the Town.
David Brown spoke stating that he had lived on this property his whole life, that he had put his heart and soul into this home and he, his wife and three children needed to be able to live there. They have been paying on the mortgage for two months.
Ruel Seger spoke reviewing the timetable of the deeds and stating that he is willing to help his neighbor but he does not want the deed recorded. He doesn’t understand why the Brown’s can’t move into their home and it will only cost money twice to record the deed.
The public hearing closed.
The Board then deliberated on the appeal with different Board members stating that the issue was fairly narrow and all goes back to the building permit; that a Board member was very uncomfortable with the way the building permit was done but was more concerned above getting the family into the house; that it was not the position of the Board to solve the problem, that one of the stipulations on the building permit was to record the deed; that the Board was not discussing an appeal to the building permit, it was discussing if the third deed (the Seger deed) should be recorded or not; that the 200 foot issue was be protected and that Mr. Seger gave a rational reason for not wanting to record the deed.
There was a motion that was seconded, voted and FAILED OF PASSAGE to deny the appeal. 2 yeas. 4 nays (David McCullough, Owens McCullough, Audrey Gerry and John Engel).
After the previous motion failed of passage it was moved, seconded and VOTED that the action of the Code Enforcement Officer is incorrect and such action is reversed because the total frontage of the Brown property by way of recorded and unrecorded deeds is 200 feet. 4 yeas. 2 nays (Traill and Stelmack).
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Chairman. 6 yeas.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to adjourn. 6 yeas. Time of adjournment – 9:10 p.m.
D. Brenda Caldwell
Town Clerk of Gorham
| 
