TOWN OF GORHAM
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
JULY 17, 2003
The July 17, 2003 regular meeting of the Gorham Board of Appeals was held at the High School Auditorium. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Present: Chairman Mark Stelmack, Board members; Audrey Gerry, James Pellerin, Joe Gwozdz, and David McCullough. Town Attorney, William Dale, Code Enforcement Officer, Clint Cushman and Deputy Town Clerk, Jennifer Elliott.
Absent: Board members Stephen Scontras and Clinton Pearson.
Moved Seconded and Voted to accept the minutes of the June 19, 2003 meeting as printed and distributed. 5 Yeas.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to take appeal# 03-162 out of order. 5 Yeas.
Appeal #03-162. The appeal of Ronald and Laura Smith requesting a permit to expand a non-conforming structure, namely to construct a 14 foot by 16 foot deck that would be 9 feet 10 inches from a side yard property line on property they own at 25 Donna Street (Map 100, Lot 57) which is in the Urban Residential District and will not encroach any further into required setbacks.
Ronald Smith spoke on his own behalf and explained that because of the positioning of the sliding glass doors, that this in the only place the deck could be built and still used. It would not encroach any further.
There were no public comments and the hearing was closed.
The board went through all the criteria for this appeal.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to grant the appeal as it meets all the criteria. 5 Yeas.
The Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Code enforcement Officer were Moved, Seconded and VOTED. 5 Yeas.
The possible reconsideration of appeal# 03-161. The appeal of Brian Leavitt and Leavitt Earthworks Co. Chairman Stelmack acknowledged the letters and correspondence from the neighbors of the Leavitt Earthworks Co. pit.
The town Attorney, Mr. Dale, explained that the neighbors do not have a right to make a motion or to have an application in front of the Board, as per the Code. If the Board decides to reconsider, it will put the appeal back to the point just before it was voted at the last meeting. He stated that the letter written by the neighbors raises 2 issues, procedural and merit, he suggested that the Board listen to what the neighbors have to say about the potential conflict of interest issue and present any new evidence they may have. He went over in general what conflict of interest is. In response to a question from the Board, he clarified that only the people that were present at the last meeting could participate in discussion and voting on this issue. Mr. Pellerin and Mr. Gwozdz
acknowledged that they were not present at the last meeting and had not reviewed any video of the June meeting.
The Board decided that they would give the pubic 20 minutes to speak on the issue. And the Board would start their deliberations at 7:50 p.m.
Janice Dunlap and Cindy Smith spoke and stated that Janice Dunlap had heard second hand that Burleigh Loveitt and David McCullough had spoke of “getting together” before the June meeting. They felt that it was a conflict for Mr. Loveitt and Mr. McCullough to be talking about the meeting in any way. They spoke of the concerns they have for the neighborhood and the amount of truck traffic from the gravel pit. They referred to a 1987 Planning Board meeting whereby the Quonset hut was to be removed and the pit reclaimed, now there is an 8 bay garage with an office.
Lisa Whitis of Dunlap Road spoke of the heavy truck traffic and that the Board should focus on the merits of this case.
Burleigh Loveitt spoke and explained that he is a member of the appointments committee, and he spoke on the matter of conflict of interest. He stated that he has a right to exercise his 1st. amendment right to free speech in a public setting as well as any place. He stated that there was no meeting between himself and Board member David McCullough, while renting a sweeper from Mr. McCulloughMr. Glen Dunlap spoke about the years he had given the town with the fire department and rescue and that he was very upset.
The public hearing was closed and the Board began their deliberations.
The Board stated that this was a planning board issue and that they had already made the decision that it was an accessory use. They discussed the letters from abutters that dealt with the operation of the pit and that this Board did not have authority over the day-to-day operations of a gravel pit. They each stated that they did not hear any new evidence, and that they would not reconsider the appeal.
There was no motion in regards to this appeal # 161.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to adjourn. 5 Yeas.
Time of adjournment, 8:00 p.m.
A TRUE RECORD OF MEETING
Attest; Jennifer Elliott, Deputy Town Clerk
| 
