TOWN OF GORHAM
BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING MINUETS
DECEMBER 18, 2003
The Gorham Board of Appeals regular meeting was held on December 18, 2003 in the Gorham High School auditorium.
Present: Chairman Mark Stelmack, Board members; Audrey Gerry, James Pellerin, Joe Gwozdz, David McCullough, Clinton Pearson and Stephen Scontras. The Town Attorney, Bill Dale, Code Enforcement Officer Clint Cushman and the Deputy Town Clerk, Jennifer Elliott.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to accept the November 20, 2003 meeting minuets as printed and distributed. 7 Yeas.
Board member David McCullough addressed the meeting and spoke on the issue of perceived conflict of interest. He stated that he has in the past purchased gravel from Gorham Sand and Gravel along with doing business with many other local businesses. He felt he could make an objective decision in this matter. The Board agreed with the show of 6 hands that David McCullough could participate in this appeal.
Appeal #03-168. The administrative appeal of Thomas Shaw of Gorham Sand and Gravel, Inc. requesting the Board reverse the decision of the Code Enforcement Officer whereby he ruled that earthmoving activity has occurred within the confines of lot #9 at the Cherry Hill Farms Estates subdivision (map 55, lot 10.309) which is in the Rural District and is in violation of several sections of the Gorham Land Use and Development Code.
Tom Shaw spoke on his behalf and explained that he did not feel this was in violation of the Code. This work applied to a residential subdivision. This had been an old gravel pit that had been reclaimed. The lot (#9) had been lower than the approved road so it had to be filled in to provide the proper drainage. This is a common practice in subdivisions.
In response from questions of the Board, Mr. Shaw explained that all loam has stayed within the area of this subdivision. He stated that the subdivision had Planning Board approval and it is a residential building construction site. The Board referred to a letter dated Oct. 29th that Mr. Shaw had sent to the Code Enforcement Officer that stated he had been doing this since 2/2001.
The Board went over the plans of the subdivision, specifically the grading plans. Mr. Shaw explained that it is common practice not to put the grading for the house lots on the plans because it depends on what the home owner would like to build for a house, every house lot the grading needs to be changed. Lot #9 has a very big puddle on it that was created when the road was put in that has created a ponding of water. The hole in this area is about 6 feet deep.
The Code Enforcement Officer read through the ordinance that pertained to gravel pits and mineral excavation. He passed out color photocopies of the lot to the Board of lot#9. The Chairman asked the Code Enforcement Officer if Chapter 4 Section 2 was the basis for the claim, and the Code Enforcement Officer said yes. The Code Officer stated he believed that Mr. Shaw was running a commercial operation within this subdivision because of the approximately 8000 cubic yards of fill material stockpiled there. The Code Enforcement Officer believed that Mr. Shaw needed to go before the Planning Board for an amendment because the final subdivision plans did not show grading for this lot.
Mr. Shaw stated that every grade on every house lot in Gorham gets changed. He stated that all the fill brought in stays within the subdivision. Three lots in this subdivision have taken over 5,000 yards of fill. The size of the lots is relevant to amount of fill that might be needed.
Bill Dale stated that basically he needs about 3000 more yards of fill to make the lot level, and then he will be ready to build a house on this lot.
There was no further public comment and the hearing was closed.
The Board discussed the applicability of commercial activity that the Code Enforcement Officer feels is taking place. There is also the issue of the grading of the lot.
The Board stated that they felt the commercial ness of this appeal is not applicable.
In response to a question from the Board, Bill Dale stated that since it is hard to know what people will be building for a house, how can you pre-grade a lot? Absent special circumstances the Planning Board is not too concerned with house lot grading and lot#9 is not a special circumstance. He explained that lot size may be an issue with regards to amount of fill that may be needed and the Town Council may want to amend an ordinance to address lot size and amount of fill.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to reverse the Code Enforcement Officer
The findings of fact as read aloud by the Town Attorney, were Moved, Seconded and VOTED. 7 Yeas.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to adjourn. 7 Yeas. Time of adjournment 9:00 p.m.
A TRUE RECORD OF MEETING
ATTEST: Jennifer Elliott, Deputy Clerk
| 
