TOWN OF GORHAM
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
JUNE 19, 2003
The Board of Appeals regular meeting was held June 19, 2003 at 7:00pm in the Gorham High School Auditorium.
Present; Chairman Mark Stelmak, Board members: Audrey Gerry, David McCullough, Clinton Pearson and Stephen Scontras. Code Enforcement Officer Clint Cushman, Deputy Town Clerk Jennifer Elliott and Town Attorney William Dale.
Abesent; Board members Joe Gwozdz and James Pellerin
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to accept the regular meeting minutes of the May 15, 2003 Board of Appeals meeting. 5 Yeas.
Moved Seconded and Voted to take the Marchand appeal out of order. 5 Yeas.
Appeal# 03-160 The appeal of Roger and Margaret Marchand requesting replacement of an existing nonconforming 12 foot by 20 foot garage with a new garage that would be the same size and in the same location on property they own at 150 South Street (Map 104, lot 8) which is in the Urban Residential District and would not encroach any further into any required setbacks.
Roger Marchand spoke on their behalf and explained that the new garage would be in the same footprint and would be just replacing the garage that is there and that they cannot use.
There was no public comment and the hearing was closed.
The Board discussed the criteria.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to approve the appeal, as it meets the criteria and will not encroach any further. 5 Yeas.
The Finding of Facts as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer were Moved, Seconded and VOTED. 5 Yeas.
Appeal# 03-157 The tabled appeal from the May 15, 2003 meeting of Robert R. Frazier requesting a variance to divide a lot containing two nonresidential buildings and one single family dwelling. The applicant wishes to create two new lots with one containing both commercial buildings and the other containing the single-family dwelling. The new commercial lot would require multiple variances; 1) A lot area variance of 25, 330 square feet, building one would require a 10 foot front, 10 foot rear and 33 foot side variance. Building two would require a 10-foot front and a 20-foot side yard variance. 2) The residential lot would require a 3182 square foot area variance and the building would require a 5-foot rear yard variance. The applicant owns the property located at 188 Narragansett Street (Map
39, lot 23), which is in the Narragansett Development District.
Robert Frazier appeared on his own behalf and explained that he cannot afford to keep this property as the Town assesses it now. He had tried to sell it and had only one offer. One of the buildings was there on the property and he moved the other two buildings there about 20-25 years ago. He explained that 2/3 of the lot is wooded and there is also a fence. In response to questions from the Board, the applicant stated that he has tried to sell the property by putting up his own signs and only had one offer. He had 3 real estate agents assess the value of the property and they could not find a comparable property to do so. The applicant had a summary sheet of minimum lot sizes and questioned 60, 000 square feet per unit with possible reduction with public water and sewer. He has
only public water, not sewer. The applicant stated that this appeal had to be all or nothing because he could not just have one of the lots get the variance and the other not; he would still not be able to sell property. He stated that he had written proof that insurance companies would not insure him because of the commercial buildings there and the property is not currently insured.
There was no public comment and the hearing was closed.
Board member Audrey Gerry disclosed that she had done business with the applicant, Mr. Frazier, on this property about 4 years ago but can make a judgment without any conflict.
The Board started the discussion with a question to the Code Enforcement Officer about what the previous zoning was for this area and he believed it would have been Rural Agriculture. The issue of the buildings being grandfathered was discussed. The applicant stated that the setbacks were 15 feet when the buildings were placed there and they were within that setbacks. The Board asked Mr. Dale if the variances should be dealt with separately and he explained that it should be all or nothing in regards to the approach of the appeal.
The Board discussed the criteria and if this is a self- imposed hardship. Can he get a reasonable return? The Board questioned if the applicant made an effort when trying to sell the property.
The applicant explained that the taxes were too high to pay on this property and he had a small abatement at one time. Moving the buildings would be too much of an expense. Mr. Dale explained that if a public street separated lots, it is 2 separate lots.
The Board discussed all the criteria.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to deny the appeal, as it does not meet the criteria. 4 Yeas. 1 Nay (Gerry)
The Findings of fact as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer were Moved, Seconded and VOTED. 5 Yeas.
Appeal# 03-161 The Administrative Appeal of Brian Leavitt of Earthworks Co. requesting the Board reverse the decision of the Code Enforcement Officer whereby he ruled that the location and operation of a construction company at this site could not be construed as a permitted use, in particular, an accessory use to a permitted use (mineral extraction) as the applicant suggests. This property is located on Plummer Road (Map 86, lot 10) and is in the Rural District.
Mr. Charles Brown, an engineer from Sebago Technics appeared on behalf of Mr. Leavitt and displayed a drawing of the property in question and explained that the property is 41 acres and 2 gravel pits and several buildings. They would like to upgrade the buildings to a maintenance and office building; the old building would be storage when updates are done. Mr. Brown gave a brief history of the pit.
In response to questions from the Board Brian Leavitt stated that each day the truck traffic might be different. He wants to upgrade to a newer facility and expand and upgrade buildings. He stated that he follows the standard regulations for operation, i.e. hours of operation, soil erosion and any inspections.
Chairman Stelmack stated that there were several letters introduced at the meeting in regards to this appeal.
The public hearing was opened and the Code Enforcement Officer stated that a construction company is not a permitted use in this district. He mentioned a memo from a Mr. Bushey stating that no gravel is being extracted from either pit. In 1987 the Board of appeals concluded that the Quonset hut building be removed after extraction or kept to be a maintenance shed.
Glen Dunlap, Scott Eicher, Debra Eicher, Janice Dunlap, Paul Farley, and Cindy Smith all neighbors, spoke out in opposition to the gravel pit operation. They stated that the truck traffic is very heavy, and the trucks are causing ruts that in turn cause damage to their cars. The hours of operation are not followed, and Mr. Leavitt operates on Sundays and holidays. They are worried about the children that live on the road. Debra Eicher played an audiotape of the noise from the trucks, recorded from inside her kitchen.
Burleigh Loveitt spoke about setting precedent with regards to permitted use and the importance of this decision. He spoke about support operations that go along with permitted uses in this district such as farming.
Chairman Stelmack read a letter from a Mr. Worrall that stated he was opposed to this gravel pit.
There was no further public comment and the hearing was closed.
In response to questions from the Board Mr. Brown stated that there were 2 to 3 vehicles in the Quonset hut. The new building that would be built would have 8 bays, 4 wide 2 deep and would be a maintenance facility.
Mr. Leavitt stated that the company uses trucks and other equipment to haul and mine gravel. Sometimes gravel is brought into the pit to be mixed. His equipment is used hand in hand with the construction aspect and the gravel extraction aspect. He, in comparison to companies like Shaw Bros., has only one pit. Mr. Leavitt did not have a time frame when the pit would be totally reclaimed.
The Board discussed why or why not this could be an accessory use to the gravel pit operation, if and how the uses could be separated.
The performance standards were discussed.
Mr. Dale stated that there was case law that pertained to accessory use; the language is in ordinary words. The Board would be deciding if just pushing gravel or processing and moving it are part of running a gravel pit, as defined in zoning ordinance.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to overturn the decision of the Code Enforcement Officer, as decided the location and operation of a construction company could be an accessory use to mineral extraction.
3 Yeas.
2 Nays (Scontras, Pearson)
The Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Town Attorney, William Dale were Moved, Seconded and VOTED. 5 Yeas.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to adjourn. 5 Yeas.
Time of adjournment 10:15 P.M.
A TRUE RECORD OF MEETING
ATTEST: Jennifer Elliott, Dep. Clerk
| 
