Town of Otisfield
Board of Appeal
Meeting Minutes
February 22, 2007
1. Call to Order: The regular meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM.
2. Attendance: Members present were Chairman Don Verrill, Acting Chairman, Jim Bishop, Ray Woodworth, Marianne Izzo-Morin, and Lenny Addler
3. Quorum: Board had a quorum.
4. Secretary’s Report:
A. Meeting Minutes from January 9, 2007. Motion to accept. MIM/RW – Unanimous.
5. Discussions and comments from Public.
A. None.
6. Administrative Appeal
A. Ray Woodworth, Map R9, Lot 17. Applicant does not meet the 50' setback requirements.
*Ray Woodworth recused himself from the Board at 7:05 PM, so he may present his application.
Recap of the ordinance as it applies today to this applicant.
Town Of Otisfield Building Ordinance: Section IV, Letter D
“All structures shall be setback a minimum of fifty (50’) from the center of the right of way.” Item 1 “All new structures shall have a minimum front setback of fifty (50’) from the edge of the right of way”
Applicant and CEO agree that the 50’ setback requirements from the edge of the ROW are not met. A measurement of 44’ was taken from the roof to the telephone pole. No building permit was obtained. Applicant is requesting permission to build a porch. Currently an unfinished roof has been placed. Applicant and CEO believe the requirements “all structures shall be set back a min of 50’ from the center of the ROW .” to be accurate at 52’. Applicant believes he can expand existing house w/ a new porch, but CEO questions if new porch is considered “new structure”. (See section IV, D, 1 above) Applicant states that former CEO gave him a verbal permit. Letter from former CEO denying this statement submitted into
public record. LA: Previous CEO was not always accurate. Letter from abutter’s Stephen & Sandra Sampson submitted into public record stating their support for applicant. Abutter’s Brian and Kim Hughes in attendance, both spoke in favor of the applicant.
Rick Micklon, Otisfield Citizen: The town hired the CEO and he is fully qualified. He is here to interpret and enforce ordinances as he sees fit. The “Burden of Proof” is on the applicant. He hopes that the board does not disregard CEO’s interpertation. The applicant clearly has a new structure attached to an older home.
Discussion:
1) Edge of the ROW and distance to the structure needs to be determined. BOA members state that the “Burden of Proof” is the applicant’s responsibility and can be obtained by professional survey within 90 days.
2) LA: Confusion in ordinance regarding the words “new structure” He wishes to have CEO seek legal clarification from MMA on this section of ordinance.
Motion to table this item, until further research has been done. MH/JB – Unanimous. Applicant will contact TT when the information requested has been received.
* Ray Woodworth returned to the board as a member at 7:40PM.
7. Appeal for a variance.
A. Roland Verrill, Map R8, Lot 50B. Applicant being represented by Maine Wide
Construction. 25’ setback requirement not met.
Discussion:
Applicant requesting a sideline variance of 15’. Applicant stated that the topography prevented the garage from going to the left side of the house or any further back behind the house. Original house was constructed by Community Concepts. Applicant states that when house was purchased in 1995, they were told a garage could someday be constructed. Board told applicant that the ordinance sideline set backs have increased from 10’ to 25’.
The Board addressed the 4 Hardship Criteria:
1. “The Land in Question can not yield a reasonable return unless the variance is requested” Motion to Deny based on the appellant has not shown evidence that the property is non marketable. LA/JB – Unanimous
2. “The Need for a Variance is due to the unique Circumstances of the Property and not the General Conditions of the Neighborhood” Motion to Deny based on the uniqueness. The appellant has not shown evidence that the property is unique for it’s location. LA/JB – (4) agree. (1) Opposed
3. “The Granting of the Variance will not alter the essential character of the Locality” Motion to accept. LA/JB – Unanimous
4. “The Hardship is not the result of action taken by the appellant or a prior owner” Motion to agree. LA/MIM – Unanimous.
TT will notify applicant in writing via certified mail.
8. Discussion and comments from Board:
A. (2) Alternates are needed for the Board. MIM will post something to get the word out.
9. Miscellaneous:
A. None.
10. Upcoming Dates:
A. BOA workshop in Auburn – March 15, 2007.
11. Adjournment:
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:31 PM. JB/LA – Unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Tanya Taft, Secretary.
Otisfield Board of Appeals
Approved on: 03/15/07
| 
