TOWN OF GORHAM
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
FEBRUARY 14, 2002
The February 14, 2002 regular meeting of the Board of Appeals was held in the auditorium at the Gorham High School.
Roll Call: Present; Chairman Owens McCullough, Board Members: Audrey Gerry, James Pellerin, David McCullough, Peter Traill and Stephen Scontras. The Code Enforcement Officer, the Assistant Town Clerk and Town Attorney, William Dale. Absent: Michael Webb.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to accept the minutes of the January 17, 2002 meeting as printed and distributed. 6Yeas.
Appeal # 02-01. The appeal of John and Anne-Marie Kennedy requesting two road frontage variances to divide their present lot, sell the present duplex and construct and ADA compatible single-family dwelling on the new vacant lot on property they own at 312 North Gorham Road (Map 97, lot 32 and Map 112, lot 7) which is in the Suburban Residential District and which presently has 91.20 feet of frontage on North Gorham Road and 63.87 feet of frontage on Middle Jam Road.
John Kennedy appeared on his own behalf and explained that property was surveyed 8 years ago to show wrong frontage and they cannot close on a house until this issue was resolved. Mr. Kennedy has become a paraplegic in the last 6 months and the old farmhouse he is living in now is impossible to get around. In 1993 a piece of the 12-acre lot was broken off and sold to the applicant, and the previous owner is still an abutter in the back of the property.
The Code Enforcement Officer stated that a private way would make this a corner lot but because of terrain features and cost, it would make a private way almost impossible.
Public hearing opened:
Polly Lawson, resident of Middle Jam Road, voiced her support of the applicants and explained that she is willing to do a 75-foot land swap.
Other neighbors, Dave McKeen and Don Sibley spoke of their support of the applicant.
There was no further public comment and the hearing was closed.
The Board discussed variance criteria and the issue of previous owners actions not being of the applicants doing.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to approve the appeal, as it meets the variance criteria. 6 Yeas.
The Finding of Fact as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer were Moved, Seconded and VOTED. 6 Yeas.
Appeal# 02-02. The Administrative Appeal of DAE Properties, LLC requesting that the Board reverse the decision of the Code Enforcement Officer whereby he ruled that a minor site plan review is required to locate a construction office with warehousing, inside and outside the building, of construction materials and equipment on property which they hold an option, presently owned be Christopher Brown at 317 Mosher Road (Map 34, lot 10.001) which is in the Industrial District.
Christopher Brown, Owner of the property, handed out pictures of the property to the Board members and explained his opposition for the need of a site plan review. He stated that the new construction company would be adding a fence that would not be see-through and the expansion at this time would be to the office space. In response to questions of the Board, he stated that at this time he runs a “rare” type of business and any other business coming in would be a change.
The Code Enforcement Officer made reference to a new Land Use Code change.
Bill Dale, Town Attorney, mentioned that new ordinance would apply, but in this case would not help this applicant.
Public Hearing opened:
Dwight Martin spoke on behalf of the appeal stating the need to expedite the process because the company needs to move.
Arthur Gagne spoke on behalf of the appeal.
Theresa Dolan spoke in opposition to the appeal, stating she feels a site plan review is necessary because the new business would be too much of a change.
There were no other comments and the Public Hearing was closed.
During Board deliberations, they discussed the nature of the operation, and the new plans look like more than 20,000 square feet.
The board made mention to the fact that they have been asked to look at an issue that pertains to the new ordinance changes, which at this time, they have not received copies of and do not feel this board should make judgment without a site plan review.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to uphold the decision of the Code Enforcement Officer. 5 Yeas. 1 Nay (D. McCullough)
The Findings of Fact as read aloud by Chairman McCullough, were Moved, Seconded and VOTED. 6 Yeas.
Chairman McCullough called a 5-minute recess. (8:15)
The meeting reconvened at 8:21;
Appeal # 02-03. The Administrative Appeal of C & C Family, LLC requesting that the board reverse the decision of the Code Enforcement Officer whereby he ruled that in the construction of an airstrip on property owned by them at Rust Road/Fort Hill Road (Map 42 & 43, lots 10, 21, 22) the applicants moved 7,000 cubic yards of material which require minor site plan review as per Chapter IV, Section II of the Land Use and Development Code.
As being an occasional consultant to the applicants, Chairman McCullough stepped down as Chair for this appeal and Peter Traill took over as acting Chair.
Bill Dale, Town Attorney, stated that there were 2 issues in front of the Board. First being the time frame of this appeal. Is it over the 30-day appeal period? Second, was the Code Enforcement Officer incorrect for permissible use?
Jim Hopkinson, Attorney representing the applicant explained that the appeal had to do with the ordinance provisions. He cited two letters, dated September 17th and December 11th. The September letter made reference to alleged violations of land use ordinance but made no reference to sections so they feel that the appeal process was not started. On December 5th, a meeting was held with the applicant, Planner, Shaw Construction and the Code Enforcement Officer.
In response to questions from the Board, he explained that there was no discussion about the 30-day time period running between September and December.
During Board deliberations, they discussed the appeal not being done in a timely manner. The September letter had a typo error in the beginning, but the wording in the letter was clear.
Bill Dale explained that anyone receiving this letter would know that they were in violation and that the 30-day rule is a common rule throughout the state and the Supreme Court takes these rules literally.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED that due to the appeal not being filed within the 30 day limit imposed by the Code, it was inappropriate for the Board to hear this appeal, therefore the Board VOTED to deny the appeal. 5Yeas. 1 abstained (Owens McCullough)
The Findings of Fact as read aloud by Bill Dale were Moved, Seconded and VOTED. 5 Yeas.
Motion to adjourn. Moved, Seconded and VOTED. 5 Yeas.
Time of Adjournment 8:55 PM.
A TRUE RECORD OF MEETING
Assistant Town Clerk
| 
