TOWN OF GORHAM
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
MAY 16, 2002
The regular meeting of the Town of Gorham Board of Appeals was held on May 16, 2002 at the Gorham High School Auditorium.
Present: Chairman Owens McCullough; Board members; Audrey Gerry, James Pellerin, Michael Webb, David McCullough, Peter Traill, and Stephen Scontras. Code Enforcement Officer and the Assistant Town Clerk.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to accept minutes for the April 18th meeting. 7 Yeas.
Nominations were opened for the purpose of electing Chairman of the Board of Appeals for the 2002-2003 session.
Michael Webb nominated Owens McCullough, Seconded by Peter Traill. After hearing no other nominations, VOTED, 7 Yeas.
Appeal # 02-12. The appeal of Mr.& Mrs. Bobby Stewart and Mr. & Mrs. Robert McCormick requesting a 100 foot frontage variance, a 35,750 square foot area variance for the new lot and a 35,750 square foot area variance for the existing lot on property owned by Mr. & Mrs. McCormick under contract to Mr. & Mrs. Stewart, at 168 Ossipee Trail (Map 113, lot 9) which is in the rural District. The variance is to split the existing lot into two lots, one lot, with a new single family dwelling to be owned by Mr. & Mrs. Stewart and one lot with the existing single-family dwelling to be owned by Mr. & Mrs. McCormick.
Chairman McCullough read briefly through letters that were submitted just prior to the meeting.
Bobby Stewart appeared and explained that they want to take a non-conforming lot and split it to abut another non-conforming lot on the back of that property.
The Code Enforcement Officer stated that he had spoken with Natalie Burns, Town Attorney and she said that this split was not appropriate according to the Code.
Hearing no Public comment, the hearing was closed.
The Board discussed the fact that this is such a large variance.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to deny the appeal, based on the extent of the variance. 7 Yeas.
The Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer were Moved, Seconded and VOTED. 7 Yeas.
Appeal # 02-13. The Administrative Appeal of Matt Nicely requesting that the Board reverse the decision of the Code Enforcement Officer whereby he determined that the 80 foot by 28 foot building Mr. Nicely wishes to construct to accommodate an indoor archery range on property he owns at 8 Rustic Ridge Drive (Map 6, Lot 35.003) which is in the Rural District is not a permitted use in the Rural District.
Matt Nicely appeared on his own behalf and explained that he would like to slowly change the business and do archery part-time. This would be seasonal use then used for storage in the off-season. 90% of this business would be used to coach kids. It would be part of a National Program; maximum number of people in the range at one time would be 12 kids and 2 adults. It would be a one story building with a crawl space above it, and would be located on the back of the house.
Public Hearing opened. The Code Enforcement Officer spoke of home occupation definitions and site review from the Planning Department. In response from questions of the Board, he stated it would need a minor site plan review.
Kim Plourde spoke on behalf of Mr. Nicely and explained that she now brings her son to an archery program outside Gorham that she feels is very good for children, but would like the chance to have a program here in Gorham.
Hearing no further comments, the hearing was closed.
The Board discussed the definitions of a Country Club and permitted use in that district.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to overturn the decision of the Code Enforcement Officer. 7 Yeas.
The Findings of Fact as read aloud by Chairman McCullough, were Moved, Seconded and VOTED. 7 Yeas.
Appeal# 02-14. The Appeal of Gretchen McEnany requesting a permit to enlarge a non-conforming structure, namely to construct a 13 ½ foot by 13 ½ foot deck to be attached to an existing single family dwelling owned by her at 97 State Street (Map 102, lot 59) which is in the Urban Residential District and which will encroach no further into any required setback than that which currently exists.
Mike Lyon spoke on behalf of the appeal and explained that it would not encroach any further; it would fit into an ell in back of the house.
There was no public comment and the Hearing was closed.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to grant the appeal. 7 Yeas.
The Findings of Facts as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer were Moved, Seconded and VOTED. 7 Yeas.
Appeal# 02-15. The appeal of Ronald Kuusela and James Allocca requesting a 15 foot frontage variance and a 3000 square foot area variance on property owned by James Allocca at 240 Mosher Road (Map 49, lot 4.001 and 5) which is in the Rural District and from which a 15 foot strip (about 300 square feet) would be sold to Ronald Kuusela for the construction of a two-car garage on his property at 236 Mosher Road. This appeal was denied at the March 21, 2002 meeting of the Board but under Chapter 1, section IV (D) (11) of the Land Use and Development Code Mr. Kuusela feels that there was a misunderstanding of facts and requesting that the Board rehear the appeal.
Ronald Kuusela appeared on behalf of this appeal and explained that he felt there was a misunderstanding. He spoke about alternatives for the garage, like setting it at an angle. He explained that the house is 100 feet back and the lot is 200 feet deep, the northern part of the lot is a drainage gully, so he feels the garage would only fit attached to the house. He stated his need for his tools and equipment to be protected from the elements.
In response to questions from the Board, Mr. Kuusela felt there were misunderstandings because he was not given alternatives from the Board. and he could not say anything to them after the Public Hearing was closed.
Chairman McCullough read a letter from Town Attorney Bill Dale stating Mr. Kuusela had to wait one year after his denial to rehear.
Board members discussed that there was nowhere in the code that they could make this more non-conforming.
Mr. Kuusela spoke about the resale value of his property being diminished if no garage was added.
The Code Enforcement Officer explained that he always has to refer people to the Board of Appeals when he denied their initial request.
No motion was made, the request fails due to lack of Motion.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to adjourn. 7 Yeas.
Time of adjournment 8:10 P.M.
A TRUE RECORD OF MEETING
ATTEST: ________________________________
Jennifer Jordan, Assistant Town Clerk
| 
