TOWN OF GORHAM
BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES
JUNE 14, 2001
The June 14, 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 Traill, Michael Webb, and Stephen Scontras; the Town Clerk, and the Code Enforcement Officer
Absent: James Pellerin, David McCullough and Owens McCullough
As the Chairman was absent, it was moved, seconded and VOTED that Peter Traill serve as Chairman pro tempore for this meeting. 4 yeas.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the Minutes of the April 19, 2001 meeting as printed and distributed. 4 yeas.
Appeal #01-17 – The appeal of Edwin and Sharon Brooks requesting a permit to expand a non-conforming structure, namely the addition of a 20 foot by 20 foot living room, a 7.5 foot by 12 foot addition to the kitchen and a 5 foot by 26 foot porch on the front of a single family dwelling on property owned by them at 46 North Gorham Road (Map 92, lot 12) which is in the Suburban Residential District and which will be 17.5 feet from the front property line where a 50 foot setback is required.
Edwin Brooks spoke on behalf of this appeal. He explained that this was an old house which was built long before that was any zoning in Gorham and is non-conforming. The porch they would like to construct would be the closest to the road but would be no closer than when the house was originally built. They need the extra room.
In response to questions from Board members Mr. Brooks explained that there are steps and a landing today where a porch originally stood. The porch was removed approximately 15 years ago. Most of the homes in the neighborhood sit back further from the road. He measured from the edge of the right of way of the road, which he assumes is a four rod road.
There was no public comment and the public hearing closed.
The Code Enforcement Officer explained that there are just steps there now, the porch was removed 15 years ago and that steps do not count in setback measurements. The Board decided to divide this appeal into two questions. (1) Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the addition of a 20 foot by 20 foot living room and a 7.5 foot by 12 foot addition to the kitchen. 4 yeas.
(2) A motion to approve the appeal to construct a 5 foot by 26 foot porch on the front of the single family dwelling FAILED OF PASSAGE. 2 yeas. 2 nays (Traill and Scontras)
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer. 4 yeas.
Appeal #01-18 – The appeal of Robert and Margaret Staab requesting a 9 foot sideline variance to construct a pool house for an existing swimming pool on property they own at 11 Valley View Drive (Map 43-A, lot 17.044) which is in the Rural District.
Prior to discussion and voting on this appeal Mr. Scontras disclosed that he is a neighbor to the applicant but did not feel there would be a conflict to his discussion and voting on this appeal. The Board agreed.
Robert Staab spoke on behalf of this appeal. He explained that he had hired a surveyor but that after the pool had been installed the contractor told Mr. Staab that he had made a mistake. Now the Staab’s want a pool shed and the right of way is too close. In response to questions from Board members he stated that he needs to pool shed to protect the mechanicals to the pool, that it would be very difficult to change the plans because the pad has been constructed and the mechanicals are all in place; that the right of way is a drainage right of way and is owned by the entire neighborhood.
The Code Enforcement Officer was questioned as to whether a drainage right of way should be treated differently than a road and he explained that any construction must be 20 feet from the right of way. The pool is not in violation but the new pool shed would be.
The public hearing closed. The Board members discussed the criteria for this appeal and it was moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the 9 foot sideline variance. 4 yeas.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer. 4 yeas.
Appeal #01-19 – The appeal of Al and Elaine Liberio requesting a 109 square foot variance as they wish to construct a 20 foot by 24 foot two-story building to house two home occupations, a woodworking shop and an art studio and which would utilize more than 20 per cent of the total floor area of the dwelling unit on property owned by Mark and Lucille Eastman at 119 South Street (Map 106, lot 8) which is in the Urban Residential District.
This appeal was presented by Al Liberio who explained that he and his wife both owned businesses and they needed room for the two businesses. They would like to construct a building attached to a garage. His wife’s art studio would be on the second floor and his woodworking studio would be on the first floor. In response to questions from Board members he stated that the building could not be shrunk because he needs the space for woodworking; that the garage is existing now; that the section between the house and the garage is not there now but was needed for esthetics. He presented pictures to show the location of the present house.
Elly Dupre, an abutter spoke in opposition to the granting of this appeal stating that she was concerned about the noise factor and that deliveries, etc. are made to her house rather than the Liberio’s. She also presented a diagram showing the present location of the house in question and her house, along with the proposed additions.
Wendy Rudolph, an abutter spoke in opposition to the granting of this appeal stating that the new building would be right behind her house and that houses in the neighborhood are 1 and 1 ½ story house and that a new 2 story would tower over the rest of the neighborhood. She also expressed concerning about the noise factor.
David Ernest, abutter. also spoke in opposition to granting this appeal stating that it is difficult to combine residential and commercial uses and he asked that the Liberio’s put the business in their house as opposed to adding a two story building.
The public hearing closed. In response to questions from Board members Mr. Liberio stated that 99% of his work is away from the home, that he only occasionally works in the garage. There was also a concern expressed by Board members as to whether the figure of total living area was correct or not. That the variance could possibly be as much as 30%.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to deny this appeal has it does not fit the criteria for a variance. 3 yeas. 1 nay (Gerry).
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer. 4 yeas.
Appeal #01-20 – The appeal of Jeffrey Sproul and Cathleen Vannah-Farmer requesting a permit to enlarge a non-conforming structure, namely the construction of a 15 foot by 15 foot addition to an existing single family dwelling that is 33 feet from Route 114 owned by Alice M. Vannah and is located at 350 Fort Hill Road (Map 64, lot 12) which is in the Rural/Shoreland Zone District.
There was no one present to present this appeal so it was presented by the Code Enforcement Officer who stated that the construction would not encroach any further into the setback than the present structure.
There was no public comment and the public hearing closed.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the appeal. 4 yeas.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer. 4 yeas.
Appeal #01-21 – The appeal of Robert L. Graham requesting a 5 ½ foot sideline setback variance for the construction of a 24 foot by 24 foot garage on property he owns at 175 Gray Road (Map 47, lot 30.001) which is in the Suburban Residential District.
Robert Graham spoke on behalf of this appeal explaining that he would like to build a garage which would need a 5 ½ foot sideline variance. His abutting neighbor approves of the building of this garage.
In response to questions from Board members Mr. Graham stated that he would be willing to move the garage 1 ½ feet so that only a minimal variance would be needed. There was no public comment and the public hearing closed.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to grant a 4 foot sideline setback variance for construction of a 24 foot by 24 foot garage. 4 yeas.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer. 4 yeas.
Appeal #01-22 – The Administrative Appeal of Mansour Aryan requesting that the Board overturn the decision of the Code Enforcement Officer whereby he determined that a business at home that would involve the inspection of motor vehicles and some automotive repair work such as brake repair, changing timing belts, working on automotive computers and electronic devices is not a permitted use or a special exception in the Rural District. Mr. Aryan wishes to start such a business at his home located at 29 Washburn Drive (Map 5, lot 23) which is in the Rural District.
Prior to discussion regarding this appeal Audrey Gerry revealed that she is an abutter to Mr. Aryan but she did not feel that would influence her vote. The Board agreed that Ms. Gerry should participate in the discussion and voting on this appeal.
Mr. Aryan spoke on behalf of this appeal stating that he needs and wants to work at home. His garage has been state inspected and approved for inspections. He went on to explain that he has back problems which he needs to schedule his work around and he and his wife have recently adopted a child and they need someone to be home to care for the two children they now have. He explained that he would be doing no oil changes and that no gasoline would be involved, he would put the safety of his family first.
The Code Enforcement Officer explained that the Rural district in the Land Use and Development Code prohibits this type of business.
There was no public comment and the public hearing closed.
The Board went over the permitted uses and special exceptions in the Rural district deciding that the Code Enforcement Officer was correct in his interpretation of the Code.
A motion to approve the appeal FAILED OF PASSSAGE. 2 yeas. 2 nays (Trail and Webb).
Prior to the above vote a motion to deny the appeal also FAILED OF PASSAGE. 2 yeas. 2 nays (Gerry and Scontras). This not being a positive motion the second motion to approve was voted and FAILED.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Chairman pro tempore. 4 yeas.
Appeal #01-23 – The appeal of Peter B. Mason requesting an 11,145 square foot area variance to convert a building that has been used as an office building into a two-unit residential building on property on which he has contracted to purchase owned by Brian and Maribeth Williamson at 12 Elm Street (Map 102, lot 163) which is in the Urban Commercial District.
Peter Mason appeared on behalf of this appeal. He distributed maps and pictures to the Board members and stated that he has the building under contract and that he intends to live on the first floor and rent the second floor. Minimal changes will need to be made and the house would be a match for the neighborhood which is mostly residential.
In response to questions from Board members he stated that he has the house under contract contingent upon this appeal; that the house would fit in the neighborhood as it is mostly residential; that at the present time the house is laid out with two separate units – one on the first floor and one on the second floor; that the business which had been located there has been gone for over a year; that the house was a two family until the previous owner created an office on the first floor and that the house had been on the market for 14 months with no commercial offers.
Jeff Mason, real estate broker and father of Peter, reviewed the history of the rezoning over the years and stated that all lots in the area are very small but that a fraternity house is on one of them. He feels that the neighbors would rather see a two family house.
There was no discussion from the public and the public hearing was closed.
The Board discussed the large amount of variance being requested and went over the criteria. It was also noted that a variance for approximately half the amount was turned down on this same property recently.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to deny the appeal as it does not meet the criteria in the Code. 4 yeas.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer. 4 yeas.
Appeal #01-24 – The appeal of MWS, Inc., requesting a permit to enlarge a non-conforming structure, namely to construct a 14 foot by 18 foot enclosed patio/sunroom that would connect an existing home to an existing garage on property owned by Patricia Durgin, located at 164 Ossipee Trail (Map 60, lot 12) which is in the Rural District.
Sarah York spoke on behalf of the appeal stating that they wished to remove the existing deck and construct a patio and sunroom and that the construction would encroach no further into the setback than the present structure.
There was no public hearing and the public hearing closed.
The Board reviewed the criteria in the Code. Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve this appeal. 4 yeas.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer. 4 yeas.
Appeal #01-25 – The appeal of Jeffrey and June Davis requesting that the Board reconsider its decision of last meeting whereby the Board denied the Davis’s 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 89m lot 13) which is in the Suburban Residential District. Mr. and Mrs. Davis wish to bring forward substantial new evidence as per Chapter I, Section IV, 11) of the Land Use and Development Code.
June Davis appeared before the Board requesting that the Board reconsider its decision of the last meeting whereby the Board denied the Davis’s a 23 foot front setback variance. She submitted pictures of the house and neighborhood, as well as signatures of some of the neighbors in support of the appeal.
The Board did not feel that there was sufficient additional information to reconsider their previous decision, therefore there was no motion to reconsider.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to adjourn. 4 yeas. Time of adjournment – 10:00 p.m.
D. Brenda Caldwell
Town Clerk of Gorham
| 
