TOWN OF GORHAM
BOARD OF APPEALS
MEETING MINUTES
JULY 21, 2005
The Gorham Board of Appeals held its regular meeting on July 21, 2005 at the Gorham High School auditorium.
Present; Chairman Audrey Gerry. Board members; Clinton Pearson, David McCullough, Joe Gwozdz and Thomas Fickett. Also present, Town Attorney Ken Cole, Code Enforcement Officer Clint Cushman and Deputy Clerk Jennifer Elliott.
Absent, Board members Lauren Carrier and Cressey Mollison.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to approve the meeting minutes from the June 16, 2005 meeting. 5 yeas.
Appeal # 05-189. The Maine DEP requests that the Board of Appeals reconsiders this appeal, of Eric & Veronica Bretton who were approved in June 2005, to remove and replace an existing seasonal camp with the total calculation, including the patio, to total 1104 square feet.
Ms. Gerry spoke of a letter from Mike Morse of the Maine DEP, that was sent to the Board members.
Moved by Mr. Fickett, Seconded and VOTED to reconsider the appeal. 5 yeas.
Ms. Gerry read the letter from DEP aloud into record. The Town Attorney stated that the 30 rule to hear reconsideration is overruled because DEP has standing, and they met the deadline anyway.
The Board discussed options with the Town Attorney, MR. Cole. They discussed the fact that the applicant cannot use the 2 outbuildings that were outside the 75 feet setback; these cannot be used in the calculation of the 30%.
Mr. Bretton spoke on his behalf and passed out 2 new proposals with different calculations and different plans. One was also provided to Mike Morse from DEP. The first proposal was asking for a 16 foot by 24 foot main dwelling with 2 decks. It would be 4 feet closer to the road and 4 feet closer to the water.
The second proposal would be no closer to the water but one foot closer to the road. Both plans would have the house centered in the lot. He stated that in the first proposal the square footage would be going down. He also stated that he has a financial stake in this project and had gone through all the proper avenues to have this approved, including being steered by the CEO and other Town officials.
In response to questions from the Board, he stated that the second proposal would not encroach any further into required setbacks. Mr. Cole stated that if these new proposals do not stay within the footprint of the existing camp, he would need a variance.
The CEO asked about the septic system and design and if it would be affected if the building was moved any closer to the road. The applicant stated that it would not encroach into the septic design. The septic was located nearer to the guesthouse.
Mike Morse from the Maine DEP spoke and stated that he believes the second proposal would be more desirable, it would maintain the 61 feet. He addressed the hardship issue and disagreed with the applicant, stating that they would have demonstrated that there would be no beneficial use of the property. He also stated that his measurements were within a foot and the applicant agreed.
There were no public comments and the hearing was closed.
The Board discussed the second proposal and volume numbers and setback amounts.
Motion to grant appeal with the second proposal.
No second to the motion. Motion failed.
Mike Morse from DEP got up and stated that he had not noticed the 2 other structures on the property and that they cannot be used in the 30% expansion calculation. That calculation has to include what is within the 75 feet normal high water line.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to table this appeal. 5 yeas.
Appeal # 15-191. The appeal of Stanley Keith Foss Jr. requesting a 12.5-foot variance. The applicant would like to remove an existing non-conforming 12-foot by 22 foot residential attached garage and replace it with an attached 16 foot by 26 foot by garage on property he owns at 5 Douglas Street (Map 106, Lot 27) which is in the Urban Residential District.
Mr. Foss spoke on his own behalf and stated that he has a very small garage and that its roof had collapsed because of the snow. It needs to be taken down. In the future he would like to put a bedroom above the garage for his mother who is blind. The garage footprint is too small to put in any of his vehicles as it is now. There are no real traffic problems on this street. He also stated that none of his neighbors have a problem with him making this garage bigger.
There were no public comments and the hearing was closed.
The Board discussed the variance criteria. The questioned why not use the enlarge or replacement criteria. The CEO stated that because this encroaches a front yard setback, that this is a variance. They discussed the unique layout of the property and the challenge it creates. They also discussed consistency of the Boards decisions.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to grant the appeal as it met all required criteria. 2 Yeas. 3 Nays. (Fickett, Gwozdz & Pearson). Motion FAILS.
The Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer were Moved, Seconded and VOTED. 5 Yeas.
Board member David McCullough leaves meeting at 8:15 p.m.
Appeal # 05-192. The appeal of James J. King requesting a 75 foot road frontage variance to convert the second level a barn on his property into an apartment for his mother that spends the winter in Florida. 400 feet of road frontage would be required for this property he own at 737 Fort Hill Road (Map 85, Lot 18), which is in the Rural District.
There was no one here on behalf of the applicant.
The CEO explained that that the road frontage was needed because the barn is not connected to the dwelling.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to table the appeal. 4 Yeas.
Appeal # 05-193. The Administrative appeal of Paul Hebert requesting that the Board overturn the Code Enforcement Officer’s decision to not relocate a road that is in front of Mr. Hebert’s home. This gravel public road provides access to several homes and a gravel pit. Mr. Hebert’s home is located at 2 Stevens Drive (Map 69, Lot 49), which is in the Urban Residential District.
Mr. Hebert and his attorney, Ms. Bailey appeared for this appeal. Ms. Bailey passed out pictures of trucks on Stevens Drive to the Board members. She also referred to a June 3rd letter to Mr. Stevens from the CEO.
She spoke about a reclamation plan that is required for this pit. The CEO stated that the Town engineer had the plan and is in the process of approving it.
The CEO also stated that this gravel pit has been registered with the Town annually with the Code Office. In 1989, existing gravel pits have to have a registration process, before that, it is hard to find a reclamation plan.
Ms. Bailey read Section 6 from page 107 in the Code.
Mr. Hebert stated that he has had his house since November and it was never disclosed that there was a gravel pit on this road. He has safety concerns for his children and for the vehicles turning in and out of Stevens Drive. He works from home and the amount of dust is great. He wants the road re-located to a safer place. He also stated that he has been in contact with Dan Shaw of Shaw Brothers to come up with a rough plan to move the road and have a new road to accommodate the gravel pit.
The Board questioned why there was an issue of pit reclamation in front of them, when the appeal that was filed states something different.
The public hearing was opened and Molly Clancy, of 4 Stevens Drive spoke of her concerns of safety on the road and the amount of truck traffic and dust and dirt it creates in her home.
Danny Shaw of Shaw Brothers spoke and stated that Paul Hebert contacted him after he had contacted the Town. The reclamation plan was waived for all old gravel pits, but he has done a plan. He had looked into moving the road, and brought that plan to the Town, but an abutting neighbor was against this and it was dropped. He said that he would be more concerned with the safety of Route 237. There are no longer retail sales from the pit, only wholesale and some of the pit has already been reclaimed. Mr. Shaw stated that he is willing to put up signs and even building a fence for Mr. Hebert.
Lynn O’Leary, a friend of the applicant spoke of her concerns of the truck traffic and in the winter her concerns with the trucks exiting Stevens Drive. The road is 18 feet wide.
There were no further public comments and the hearing was closed.
The Board discussed the restrictions of moving a public road and the reclamation being a separate issue.
The CEO stated that this is actually in the Rural Zoning District.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to uphold the Code Enforcement Officer’s decision. 4 Yeas.
The Findings of Fact as read aloud by the CEO and Clinton Pearson were Moved, Seconded and VOTED. 4 Yeas.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to adjourn. 4 Yeas.
Time of adjournment 9:05 P.M.
A true record of Meeting:
ATTEST: ________________________________
Jennifer Elliott, Deputy Clerk
| 
