TOWN OF GORHAM
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES
FEBRUARY 20, 2003
The February 20, 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 pm.
Present: Chairman Owens McCullough; Board members, Audrey Gerry, James Pellerin, Mike Webb, David McCullough, Peter Traill and Stephen Scontras. The Town Attorney, Bill Dale; Code Enforcement Officer and the Deputy Town Clerk.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to accept the minutes of the December 19, 2002 meeting as printed and distributed. 7 Yeas.
Chairman McCullough spoke about a remand from court Re: Mr. Pierce and Northern Lift, LLC. The Town Attorney spoke briefly about the next step will be up to Mr. Pierce, the Board will be taking up the issue to see if there is enough factual evidence in this case.
Appeal# 02-145 The appeal of Kenneth and Robyn Manchester requesting reapproval of a 9 foot sideline variance for removal of an existing 12 foot by 10 foot shed and replace it with an 18 foot by 24 foot garage on property they own at 42 Tow Path Road (Map 111, Lot 71) which is in the Suburban Residential District. The applicants received approval from the Board of Appeals on May 11, 2000 but failed to record the Certificate of Zoning Variance within the time frame required by the Code.
Robyn Manchester appeared on her behalf and explained that nothing had changed from May of 2000; they want to tear down the old shed and build a new garage in its place.
There was no public comment and the hearing was closed.
The Board discussed the 4 criteria,
1. The land cannot yield a reasonable return
2. The need for a variance is due to the unique circumstances of the property
3. It will not alter the essential character of the locality
4. The hardship is not the result of action taken by the applicant.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to grant the appeal as it meets all the criteria. 7 Yeas.
The Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer were Moved, Seconded and VOTED. 7 Yeas.
Appeal# 02-146 The appeal of Robert Masterson requesting a permit to enlarge a non-conforming building on property he owns at 1 Phinney Street (Map 43, Lot 10) which is in the Rural District and would not encroach any further into required setbacks. He wishes to expand the kitchen with a 6 foot by 12-foot addition. The addition would be 28 feet from the front property line whereas the existing home is 25 feet from the property line. Robert Masterson appeared on his own behalf and explained that he wants to add a 6-foot by 12-foot addition to his kitchen. The house was built in 1860.
There was no public comment and the hearing was closed.
The Board discussed the criteria;
1. It will not create any hazards to people or traffic;
2. Will not create water pollution or erosion;
3. Will not create unhealthful conditions;
4. Will not create nuisances to neighboring properties;
5. Waste disposal systems are adequate;
6. Will not damage aquatic life.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to grant the appeal as it meets all criteria. 7 Yeas.
The Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer were Moved, Seconded and VOTED. 7 Yeas.
Appeal# 02-147 The appeal of Priscilla I. Kecskemethy requesting a 20 foot front yard setback variance to accommodate a new 28 foot by 34 foot home and attached 24 foot by 26 foot garage on property she owns on Wards Hill Road (Map 69, lot 31) which is in the Rural District, that would be 50 feet from Route 237.
Priscilla Kecskemethy appeared on her own behalf and explained that she was given this lot as a gift from her father and has been paying taxes on this lot as an assessed house lot for 20 years.
The public Hearing was opened and Robyn Manchester spoke on behalf of the applicant stating that a house measuring any less than 28 feet wide has not enough living space to move around in. There were no more public comments and the hearing was closed.
The Board discussed the criteria and the hardship issue. The Town Attorney stated that a lot could be grand fathered. Chairman McCullough stated that this lot is a great example of a lot that truly meets the standard for the hardship criteria. This lot was created before the zoning was put into place. The Board reviewed the criteria:
1. Land cannot yield a reasonable return;
2. The variance is needed due to unique circumstances of the property;
3. Will not alter the character of the locality;
4. The hardship is not the result of action taken by the applicant.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to grant the appeal as it meets all the criteria. 7 Yeas.
The Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer were Moved, Seconded and VOTED. 7 Yeas.
Appeal# 02-148 The appeal of Kathy Kigin and Lenora Trussell requesting a permit to expand a nonconforming structure, namely to enclose a 6 foot by 23 foot porch and use as a living space and add a ¾ bath on property they own at 12 Preble Street (Map 102, lot 93) which is in the Urban Residential District and does not encroach any further into any required setbacks. The Code Enforcement Officer stated that the porch is existing and they just want to enclose it.
Kathy Kigin appeared on her own behalf and explained that they want to enclose the porch so they can get more use out of it and the bath would be part of that enclosure. There was no public comment and the hearing was closed.
The board discussed the special exception criteria;
1. It will not create hazards to people or traffic;
2. Will not cause water pollution or erosion;
3. Will not create unhealfull condition;
4. Will not create nuisances to neighboring properties;
5. Waste disposal systems are adequate;
6. There will not be any impact on fish or other aquatic life.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to grant the appeal as it meets the criteria and does not encroach any further. 7 Yeas.
The Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer were Moved, Seconded and VOTED. 7 Yeas.
Appeal# 02-149 The appeal of John and Cheryl Ofinished upstairs.
The Code Enforcement Officer stated that if he wanted a driveway change he will need to come into the Code Office and start the paper work and it will need approval from the Public Works Director.
There was no public comment and the hearing was closed.
The Board discussed the Special Exception Criteria;
1. Will not create a hazard to people or traffic
2. Will not cause any water pollution or erosion;
3. Will not create unhealthful conditions;
4. Will not create nuisances to neighboring properties;
5. Waste disposal systems are adequate;
6. Will not affect fish spawning grounds.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to grant the appeal as it meets all criteria. 7 Yeas.
The Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer were Moved Seconded and VOTED. 7 Yeas.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to adjourn. 7 Yeas. Time of adjournment 8:00pm.
A TRUE RECORD OF MEETING
Jennifer Elliott, Dep. Clerk
| 
