TOWN OF GORHAM
BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES
APRIL 19, 2001
The April 19, 2001 regular meeting of the Gorham Board of Appeals was held in the auditorium at the Gorham High School.
Roll Call: Present: Board members Audrey Gerry, Peter Trail, Michael Webb, David McCullough, Stephen Scontras, James Pellerin and Owens McCullough; the Town Clerk, the Town Attorney and the Code Enforcement Officer
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the Minutes of the March 15, 2001 meeting as printed and distributed. 7 yeas.
The Clerk, acting as Chairman pro tempore, conducted the election of Chairman. Moved, seconded and VOTED to elect Owens McCullough has Chairman of the Board of Appeals for 2001. 7 yeas.
The remainder of the meeting was conducted by the new Chairman, Owens McCullough.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to elect Michael Webb as Secretary. 7 yeas.
Old Business
Appeal #01-09 – The administrative appeal of Susan Duchain whereby she requests the Board to reverse the decision of the Code Enforcement Officer, whereby he ruled that two duplexes to be constructed on two proposed new adjacent lots would require subdivision review and sprinkler systems in all units or a fire pond to service the units unless there was an existing hydrant within 1,000 feet on property she owns at Route 25 (Map 78, lot 3) which is in the Rural District.
William Dale, Town Attorney, commented on this appeal explaining to the Board that this appeal is asking four different questions. He went over each of the questions explaining how the law relates to each and his recommendations for each. The breakdown was (1) if two duplexes on separate lots generate subdivision review; (2) whether a lot should have 200 feet of frontage back to the setback; (3) how the issue of subdivision affects this situation; and (4) if sprinklers should be required. There was also discussion regarding the comments the Code Enforcement Officer had written on the building permit he did issue.
In response to questions from Board members Susan Duchaine stated that she had submitted two building permit applications but had later withdrawn one. The second application was resubmitted in her husband’s name. The Code Enforcement Officer had issued a building permit for the first application but had written conditions on it and had refused to issue a building permit to her husband.
There was considerable discussion among Board members and the Town Attorney regarding the notes on the permit and what constitutes a subdivision.
There was no public comment and the public hearing closed.
The Board decided to treat the different issues with separate votes.
(1) Moved, seconded and VOTED that the Code Enforcement Officer should issue another permit and should not write any conditions or comments on this permit but should attach a separate letter with any conditions or comments. 7 yeas.
(2) Moved, seconded and VOTED to dismiss the point of the Code Enforcement Officer actions in requiring the required lot width from the front line to the front setback line as a mute point. 7 yeas.
Prior to the above vote a motion that the Code Enforcement Officer acted correctly in requiring the lot width from the front line to the front setback line FAILED OF PASSAGE. 0 yeas. 7 nays.
(3) Moved, seconded and VOTED to uphold the decision of the Code Enforcement Officer in requiring a subdivision site plan review for four dwelling units but that the first duplex does not need subdivision review. 7 yeas.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Town Attorney. 7 yeas.
New Business
Appeal #01-11 – The appeal of Robert A. Ferrar requesting a 3 foot sideline setback variance for the construction of a 26 foot by 30 foot residential garage on property he owns at 46 Johnson Road (Map 100, lot 37) which is in the Urban Residential District.
Robert Ferrar spoke on behalf of this appeal. He explained that he would like to have a garage but does not want to cut his trees down. In response to questions from Board members he stated that the distance from the tree to the garage is 7 feet; why he needed a 26 foot garage; and other houses in the neighborhood have garages.
There was no public comment and the public hearing closed.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve a three foot sideline setback variance. 7 yeas.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer. 7 yeas.
Appeal #01-12 – The appeal of Floyd L. and Hazel M. Libby requesting a permit to add a 2 foot by 12 foot addition to the rear of an existing for an non-conforming garage that is 40 feet from Route 237 and 49 feet from Queen Street on property he owns at 2 Queen Street (Map 34, lot 13) which is in the Suburban Residential District.
Floyd Libby spoke on behalf of this appeal explaining that he has had a portable garage for years but now would like to add 2 feet to the length and widen the doors so his vehicles will fit inside.
There was no public comment and the public hearing closed.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the expansion of a non-conforming garage by adding a 2 foot by 12 foot addition. 7 yeas.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer. 7 yeas.
Appeal #01-13 – The appeal of John S. Reuter and Linda McGill requesting a 3 foot sideline setback variance for an existing single family dwelling on property they own at 25 Hickory Lane (Map 92, lot 14,010) which is in the Suburban Residential District.
John Reuter spoke on behalf of this appeal explaining that the house burned down and after they had rebuilt it they discovered that the back corner of the ell wing was too closed to the property line. In response to questions from Board members he stated that the home was rebuilt in the same location and that a builder had built the replacement house for them.
There was no public comment and the public hearing closed.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve a three foot sideline setback variance. 7 yeas.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer. 7 yeas.
Appeal #01-14 – The appeal of Jeffrey and June Davis requesting a 23 foot front setback variance to construct an 8 foot by 40 foot open porch on the front of their home on property they own at 11 George Street (Map 89, lot 13) which is in the Suburban Residential District.
Jeff Davis spoke on behalf of this appeal explaining that the house was built in the early 1960’s and they would now like to construct an open porch on the front. In response to questions from Board members he stated that the house was built before the Land Use Code was enacted and that the new construction would be going 8 feet further into the required setback for a total of 23 feet.
There was no public comment and the public hearing closed.
The Board reviewed the criteria for a variance.
A motion to grant the appeal because it meets the criteria for a variance FAILED OF PASSAGE. 3 yeas. 4 nays (Trail, Scontras, Webb and Pellerin).
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer. 7 yeas.
Appeal #01-15 – The appeal of Michael S. and Shelby T. Wintle requesting a permit to replace and enlarge a non-conforming structure, namely to construct a 30 foot by 30 foot garage and breezeway on an existing foundation on property they own at 114 County Road (Map 4, lot 8) which in the Rural District.
Michael Wintle spoke on behalf of this appeal explaining that the last owner of the house received was granted an appeal but after putting in the foundation did not complete the project. In response to questions from Board member he stated that the foundation was there when he purchased the property and that his plans are the same as the previous owner.
There was no public comment and the public hearing closed.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the replacement and enlargement of this nonconforming use, namely the construction of a garage and breezeway. 7 yeas.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer. 7 yeas.
Appeal #01-16 – The appeal of Jack and Pam Snow requesting a permit to enlarge a non-conforming structure, namely to add a 12 foot by 30 foot open porch to an existing single-family dwelling that is 6 feet, 4 inches from a side yard property line on property they own at 73 New Portland Road (Map 100, lot 82) which is in the Urban Residential District.
Jack Snow spoke on behalf of this appeal stating that he wished to build a porch on the south side of his house and that he would not encroach on the setback any closer than the present structure.
There was no public comment and the public hearing closed.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the enlargement of a non-conforming structure by adding an open porch. 7 yeas.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer. 7 yeas.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to adjourn. 7 yeas. Time of adjournment – 8:10 p.m.
D. Brenda Caldwell
Town Clerk of Gorham
| 
