TOWN OF GORHAM
BOARD OF APPEALS
JUNE 17, 2010
MEETING MINUTES
The Gorham Zoning Board of Appeals met on June 17, 2010 at 7pm at the municipal center.
Roll Call: Present; Chairman Joe Gwozdz, Board members Mark Curtis, Melinda Shain, Alton Shurtleff, Stephen Scontras and Charles Haws. Also present, Code Enforcement Officer, David Twomey and Deputy Town Clerk, Jennifer Elliott
Moved, seconded and VOTED to approve the October 15, 2009 meeting minutes as printed and distributed
5 yeas (Haws abstained)
Comments from the Code Officer included 2 handouts to the board members, a site plan from the applicant and a letter from an abutter. He stated that in the email from Natalie Burns to the Planning office “staff Report” was between Planning office and the town attorney. The 29 parking spaces referenced in the document were in front of the planning board.
Appeal # 101-01. The appeal of Matt Mattingly requesting a 7 foot variance. The applicant is looking to remove approx 14 feet by 57 feet of the paved area, and replace it with landscaping and construct a parking lot further into the property on the property he owns at 91 South Street (Map 106, Lot 42) which is in the Urban Residential District.
Mr. Mattingly spoke on his own behalf and stated that the Pinecrest Bed and Breakfast is in question and in 1993 the parking space was approved, but later not allowed. He wants to maintain the character of the neighborhood.
In response to questions from the board, he stated that he took over in 2005, and in 1993 there was planning board approval, then paving then today’s situation. The prior owner has submitted a minor site plan review, but there are no specific records although there is a permit for 50 feet by 60 feet of pavement, there are no specific plans. There is a building permit that does not match this; there is a note on the back of the permit that says no permit for paving. The applicant wants to make the spaces less non-conforming
The Code Enforcement Officer referenced page 133 stating no parking in the setback.
The applicant wants to drop the private dining. He stated a restaurant operates there now as a special exception.
The Public Hearing was opened and an abutter got up to look at the currant site plan map.
Linda McLean, of 9 Morrill Ave., got up and stated that the applicant wants to change the parking so he can make this into a restaurant and make it more commercial. She wanted the Board to take into consideration that this is a residential area. When there are concerts at Pinecrest they are right behind her house. She referred to a 2006 appeal where the Bed and Breakfast could not be used as a restaurant.
The Code Enforcement Officer stated that the Planning Board has not made a final decision.
There were no further comments and the Public Hearing was closed.
The board discussed the fact that the ordinance has been changed since the 2006 appeal board decision, whereas the Bed and Breakfast with accessory use has been approved.
They discussed commercial use and the fact this is in an Urban Residential area, when parking was added and the Town’s records for this property and if they should table the appeal. The board questioned if they should wait for advice from the Town attorney.
Public hearing re-opened and Sandra Mowery, the Zoning Administrator, spoke and referred to the email she received from the Town Attorney, Natalie Burns.
The Public hearing was closed.
The board asked the applicant what tabling would do to his timeline, and he stated that he has been trying to take care of this since January, to do what they needed to do.
The applicant would weigh the alternatives if the Planning Board denied and that he gets approval from the Town Council for the concerts.
The Board discussed the hardship criteria
The Board had a question for the Zoning Administrator about if the 5 spaces were residential and they are, she also stated that what if the design was moved back 7 feet? Would it resolve the issue? The applicant said it would mean removing 2 one hundred year old trees.
Moved, Seconded to approve the variance as requested.
The Board went through each of the hardship criteria;
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to approve A. 1 Yea, 4 Nays (Haws, Scontras, Gwozdz and Shain) 1 abstain (Shurtleff)
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to approve B. 6 Yeas
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to approve C. 6 Yeas
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to approve D. 2 Yeas, 4 Nays (Shain, Haws, Gwozdz and Scontras)
VOTED to approve variance 2 Yeas. 4 Nays ( Shain, Scontras, Gwozdz and Haws)
Variance denied. It did not meet all the required criteria.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to approve the Findings of Fact as read aloud by the Code Enforcement Officer. 6 Yeas.
Moved, Seconded and VOTED to adjourn. 6 Yeas.
Time of adjournment 8:35 pm
A true record of meeting
ATTEST: ____________________________
Jennifer Elliott, Deputy Clerk
| 
