TOWN OF GORHAM
BOARD OF APPEALS AMENDED MINUTES
JUNE 27, 2002
The June 27, 2002 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, Michael Webb, David McCullough, Peter Traill and Stephen Scontras. The Code Enforcement Officer and the Assistant Town Clerk.
Absent; James Pellerin
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to accept the minutes of the May 16, 2002 regular meeting. 6 Yeas
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to accept the minutes of the June 20, 2002 meeting. 6 Yeas
Appeal # 02-16. The appeal of Dennis Nickerson requesting a permit to enlarge and replace a non-conforming structure, namely to remove an existing 7 foot by 15 foot front porch and replace it with new construction on a new foundation with the new construction expanded by volume with a second story but the footprint would not be increased in size on property he owns at 251 Narraganset Street (Map 35, Lot 16.001) which is in the Narragansett Development District.
Dennis Nickerson appeared on his own behalf and explained that the existing porch is run down and would like to replace it with a foundation and newer porch.
There was no public comment and the public hearing was closed.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to grant the appeal as it meets the non-conforming criteria. 6 Yeas
The Findings of Facts as read aloud by the Code Enforcement officer, were Moved, Seconded and VOTED. 6 Yeas.
Appeal# 02-17 The appeal of Richard D. Pierce requesting a permit to convert a non-conforming use to another non-conforming use, namely to operate Northern Lift, LLC which distributes auto lift mechanisms to auto repair and other businesses on property formerly occupied by Dixon Bros. Oil Co. located at 230 Main Street (Map 100, lot 39) which is in the Urban Residential/Office Residential District.
Richard Pierce appeared on his own behalf and explained that he wants to use the existing garage for an auto repair shop with an in ground lift. Also he wants to add storage units that measure 10x20 each, from the side of the existing garage. He wants this to be for public use and it has a lot of parking. He explained that the oil tanks have been removed and the soil has been tested and cleared by the EPA. In response from questions of the Board, the applicant explained that the storage units would be hidden from the street, and the traffic would be minimal, depending on how the business does. There would be no gas or oil storage on the site. Oil trucks do occasionally park there. He stated that the hours of operation would depend on the outcome of the appeal.
The Code enforcement Officer that if the appeal is granted, it would automatically go to a site plan review. The applicant stated that this business would be less intrusive than Dixon Bros. Was.
The Public Hearing was opened and Mr. Whinery, an abutter spoke and explained that he was unaware that this was going to be an auto repair business. He voiced his concerns about the smell of oil and debris in the lot that is causing him problems with a privacy fence on his property.
Mr. Gilbert McDonald, an abutter voiced his concerns about what will be parked on the lot and the noise level.
The applicant stated he is in the process of cleaning up the debris on the property.
There were no more comments from the Public and the Hearing was closed.
The Board discussed special exception standards, issues pertaining to the neighborhood, hours of operation, traffic, odor and impact to the neighborhood.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to grant the appeal with the request that the Planning Department consider the hours of operation of the business for the consideration of the neighborhood. Special exception criteria have been met.
5 Yeas. 1 Nay ( Scontras)
The Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Code Enforcement officer were Moved, Seconded and VOTED. 6 Yeas.
Appeal # 02-18. The appeal of Carl & Vicki Frost requesting a 10 foot sideline variance to expand an existing 22 foot by 24 foot residential garage with an addition that would result in the garage being 24 foot by 30 foot on property owned by them at 353 New Portland Road (Map 11, lot 3) which is in the Rural/Manufactured Housing District.
Carl Frost appeared on his own behalf and explained that he would like to remove the existing garage and rebuild by enlarging the new floor and rebuilding the garage. The foundation that is there now has had a large crack in it since he bought the property. He cannot build it in the other direction because of the septic tank and it would block the back door to the residence. He has discussed the setback guidelines with the Code Officer and understands them. There would be another 8 feet added.
There were no public comments and the hearing was closed.
The Board discussed the criteria for a 20% variance and the single family set back variance. The Code Enforcement Officer stated that the garage was legally non-conforming and therefore grand fathered.
The Board discussed hardship criteria and economic implications of a hardship.
Moved, and seconded to grant the appeal as it meets the hardship criteria.
Upon further discussion of the Board, they concluded that an 8-foot variance would not meet the criteria.
Motion to grant the appeal was withdrawn by D. McCullough.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to grant the appeal for the 20% (2 foot variance).
6 Yeas
The Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer were Moved, Seconded and VOTED. 6 Yeas
Appeal # 02-19 Bruce Elder appeared on behalf of his son, Darren Elder and explained that the property was deeded to his son. His son needed to know the value of the land for loan purposes and the assessorHe explained that this part of the pit is closed and the area is completely vegetated and stable and approved by DEP for a driveway. The applicant showed the Board members a poster with photos of the property and explained the configuration of the pit in reference to the house lot, which is 200 feet by 300 feet in size.
The Board discussed the reclamation plan with Mr. Elder and viewed a reclamation map.
Mr. Elder has a phased reclamation plan that was written with the help of Bill Taylor.
The public hearing was opened and the Code Enforcement Officer explained that he was unaware of any info from the assessor
The Board referred to a letter from John Phinney and Mr. Elder that referred to the pit and itThe Board discussed a letter would be needed from the cemetery association that would clarify the buffer issue in reference to this lot.
The Code Enforcement Officer stated that for a front buffer according to the code, it had to remain a vegetated, untouched buffer, or the Planning Board has to amend it.
He also stated that a contract engineer would need to confirm that part or the entire pit is closed.
The board discussed the question if the entire pit is closed, does the definition of the buffers change and does it revert back to no setbacks?
Hearing no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to overturn the decision of the Code Enforcement Officer, with the following conditions, all to be met.
1. Written clarification between the cemetery association and the applicant be provided regarding encroachment.
2. Confirmation regarding the completion of phases of the reclamation plan.
3. A legal opinion be provided regarding the applicability of the buffer/setbacks once various phases of the reclamation plan are completed.
5 Yeas. 1 Nay (O. McCullough)
The findings of facts as read aloud by Chairman McCullough were Moved, Seconded and VOTED. 6 Yeas.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to adjourn. 6 Yeas.
Time of adjournment, 9:55 pm
A TRUE RECORD OF MEETING
Attest: ___________________________________________
Jennifer Jordan, Assistant Town Clerk
NOTE: Town Attorney ruled that the Board of Appeals decsion lacked authority to amend conditions of approval imposed by the planning board. (See attached letter)
| 
