TOWN OF GORHAM
BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES
August 16, 2001
The August 16, 2001 regular meeting of the Gorham Board of Appeals was held in the auditorium at the Gorham High School.
Roll Call: Present: Chairman Owens McCullough; Board members Audrey Gerry, Peter Traill, Michael Webb, David McCullough, Town Attorney Bill Dale, the Assistant Town Clerk and the Code Enforcement Officer.
Absent: James Pellerin and Stephen Scontras
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to approve the Minutes of the July 12, 2001 meeting as printed and distributed. 5 yeas.
Appeal #01-31- The appeal of Allen and Gloria Bradeen requesting a 25 foot setback variance for the encroachment on a proposed private way they will be constructing to access a proposed single-family dwelling for themselves. The proposed private way would only be 25 feet from the existing two-family dwelling on property they own at 160-A Dingley Springs Road (Map 77, lot 22) which is in the suburban Residential/Manufactured Housing District.
Allen Bradeen appeared on behalf of this appeal. He explained that he would need a wider area for a private way, a total of 100 feet and he currently has 75 feet. In response of questions from Board members, Mr. Bradeen provided a map of his property to show total acreage of 5.1, and the he was sole owner of this property which was to be his source of income.
There was no public comment and the public hearing was closed. During deliberations, Board Member Gerry inquired from the Code enforcement officer if there was enough frontage to meet the 200-foot requirement. He stated that if the private way is approved, then frontage for both lots would be conforming.
A motion to grant the appeal FAILED OF PASSAGE. 2 Yeas. 3Nays ( Gerry, O. McCullough, Traill)
The Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer were moved, seconded and VOTED, 5 yeas.
Appeal #01-32- The appeal Michael and Carole Brown requesting that the Board reverse the decision of the Code Enforcement Officer whereby he refused to issue them a building permit for a single family dwelling on property they own on Quincey Drive (Map21, lot 1) which is in the Suburban Residential District because Quincey Drive west of Darin Drive has not been inspected and certified by a Town engineer. The Browns would also like the Board to rule on whether the 200 feet of frontage along the roadway must be maintained to the setback line.
Susan Duchaine appeared on behalf of this appeal explaining that this house is in the beginning of subdivision and road has a maintenance agreement. Tom Greer, Mike Brown, and Carol Brown
Spoke on behalf of this appeal The Code Enforcement Officer and his Assistant gave a presentation showing non-conforming lots.
Chairman Owens McCullough read aloud a letter from John Phinney in support of this appeal.
There were no further public comments and the public hearing was closed. During deliberations the Board members discussed taking this appeal in 2 parts. First part being building permit meeting criteria as far as subdivisions. Second part being 200-foot frontage. Bill Dale discussed advising CEO on street frontage.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to deny first part of appeal on basis that the Brown’s can obtain an easement, therefore acting on this appeal is not necessary. 5 Yeas. Moved, seconded and VOTED that road frontage is the distance measured at the street (ROW) line only. 4Yeas. 1 Nay (Gerry). The board members discussed with Bill Dale that this is a local ordinance and it is the ZBA”s job to interpret it. Ownes McCullough stated that the Planning Board and the Town Council should make changes and/or definitions clear and consistent. Further discussion from Board members suggested that the Chair of the ZBA should write a letter to Town Council with their concerns regarding this issue. Moved, seconded and VOTED. 4yeas.
The Finding of Fact as read aloud by Bill Dale, Town Attourneywere moved, seconded and VOTED. 5 Yeas.
The board decided that because of the long agenda of this meeting that they would not take up new business after 10pm.
Appeal#01-33- The appeal of STJ, Inc. requesting that the Board overturn the decision of the Code Enforcement Officer whereby he ruled that to remove an existing 330 foot telecommunication tower on property they own at Finn Parker Road (Map 55, lot 8.005) which is in the Rural District and replace it with a new tower of the same height would not be a replacement of a non-conforming structure but a new tower requiring Planning Board approval.
Mark Curtis spoke on behalf of this appeal. He explained that this tower has been in place since 1978 and does not meet climbing safety requirements because of it’s age. They would like to construct a new tower that would accommodate co-location if need be. The existing tower would be temporary while the new tower was under construction. In response to questions from the Board Mr. Curtis stated that the new tower would be built for safety and increased capacity. The guide wires would be the same area and there would be no interruption of service.
The Code Enforcement Officer explained that at this time the applicant was unsure of specifications. He saw this project as a replacement. Mike Phinney, Town Council Member spoke on behalf of this appeal. He stated that he was part of the Council that put this ordinance through with the plan to help lessen the need of the number of new towers, but also to encourage co-location. Tom Shaw spoke on behalf of this appeal and explained that there would be no difference between the old and new towers by looking at them and they would be within 10 feet of each other. Assistant Code Officer spoke and explained that the new tower could not be built in exactly the same spot.
The board members discussed the guidelines of wireless communication towers. Town Attorney agreed with board members if tower falls within guidelines, then it should be ok.
No further Public comment and public hearing was closed.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve appeal # 01-33 and to reverse the decision of the Code Enforcement officer due to the findings of the Board that a new tower would not be a replacement of a non-conforming structure but reconstruction of a non-conforming structure. 5 Yeas.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to approve the Findings of Fact read aloud by Board member Traill. 5 Yeas.
At this time the Town Attorney left the meeting.
Appeal #01-34 – The administrative appeal of Michael Weisman requesting that the Board reverse the decision of the Code enforcement Officer whereby he denied Mr. Weisman a permit to develop a private way to provide frontage for a new lot that would accommodate a new two-family dwelling on property he owns at 96 North Gorham Rd. (Map 93, lot 31) which is in the Suburban Residential/Manufactured Housing district. The lot would require nearly 13,000 square feet of the required 80,000 square feet to be located across the private way from the bulk of the lot (67,000 square feet) where the duplex would be located.
Mike Weisman spoke on behalf of this appeal. He explained that because of an error made by a surveyor, the house is actually 40 feet further closer to North Gorham Road than it was supposed to be.
The Code Enforcement Officer explained that Mr. Weisman owns both lots and the duplex sits on the back lot. Mr. Wiesman provided the Board members with a map of his property and proposed right of way.
In response to questions from the Board members, Mr. Weisman stated the road could be moved, but that would bring power too close and more trees would have to be cut.
There was no public comment and the public hearing was closed.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to uphold the decision of the Code Enforcement Officer in denying a permit to develop a private way. 4 Yeas 1 nay(David McCullough)
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to approve the Findings of Facts as read aloud by Chairman McCullough. 5 Yeas.
Board member David McCullough discussed taking up the appeals of the people who were in the audience only, at this time and the Board members agreed.
Appeal#01-35- The appeal of Robert and Deb Poissant requesting a permit to replace a non-conforming structure, namely to remove a 12 foot by 12 foot existing deck and replace it with a new deck of the same size in the same location on property they own at 6 Teran Street(Map 107, lot 15) which is in the Urban Residential District.
Deb Poissant spoke on behalf of this appeal explaining that the existing deck was unsafe and this was an entrance that everyone uses.
There was no public comment and the public hearing was closed.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve this replacement of a 12 foot by 12-foot deck. 5 Yeas.
The Findings of Fact as read aloud by Code Enforcement Officer were moved, seconded and VOTED. 5 Yeas.
At this point in the meeting, representatives from Sebago Brewing Co. entered the meeting and asked if their appeal could be heard. The Board members approved.
Appeal #01-36- The appeal of Kenneth and Beverly Dix requesting a 21,763 square foot area variance, a 75 foot frontage variance for one lot and a 13,947 square foot area variance and a 47 foot frontage variance for the second lot so that they may divide their lot at 99 Barstow Road (Map 00089, lot 00075) into two lots with a single-family dwelling on each lot.
Kenneth Dix spoke on behalf of this appeal explaining that this property was granfathered.
There was no public comment and the public hearing was closed. The board discussed the grandfather issue being in place before the zoning was done.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve a 21,763 square foot variance, a 75 foot frontage variance for one lot and a 13,947 square foot area variance and a 47 foot frontage variance for the second lot. 4 Yeas 1 nay (Traill).
The findings of Fact as read aloud by Code Enforcement Officer were moved, seconded and VOTED. 5 Yeas.
Motion to take appeal # 01-40 out of order. Moved, seconded and VOTED. 5 Yeas.
Appeal# 01-40- The appeal of Sebago Brewing Company requesting a permit to enlarge a non-conforming structure, namely to replace and existing 10 foot by 12 foot walk in cooler with a 16 foot by 24 foot new walk in cooler that will encroach no further into any required setbacks than that which exist now on property, owned by Susan Duchaine, on which they hold an option to purchase at 29 Elm Street ( Map 103, lot 80) which is in the Urban Residential District.
Kai Adams spoke on behalf of this appeal explaining that he wants to expand the cooler because the existing cooler is too small. In response to questions from the Board, Adams explained that the expansion will not move the cooler closer to the road.
There was no public comment and the public hearing was closed.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the replacement of the existing 10 foot by 12 foot walk in cooler with a 16 foot by 24 foot new walk in cooler. 5 Yeas.
The Findings of Fact as read aloud by Code Enforcement Officer were moved, seconded and VOTED. 5 Yeas.
Board member David McCullough made a motion to carry the remaining appeals to the September 13, 2001 meeting. Motion was seconded by Webb and VOTED 5 Yeas.
Moved, seconded and VOTED to adjourn. 5 Yeas. Time of adjournment 10:25pm.
A TRUE RECORD OF MEETING Attest:
Assistant Town Clerk
| 
