Town of Otisfield
Board of Appeal
Meeting Minutes
August 21, 2008
1. Call to Order: The regular meeting was called to order at 7:09 PM.
2. Attendance: Members present were Chairman Don Verrill, Vice Chairman Lenny Addler, Jim Bishop and Marianne Izzo-Morin – Recording Secretary
3. Quorum: Board had a quorum.
4. Secretary’s Report:
A. Meeting Minutes from July 29, 2008. Motion to accept minutes. MIM/LA – Unanimous.
5. Discussions and comments from Public.
A. None.
6. Administrative Appeal
A. None.
7. Appeal for a variance.
A. Pamela Hughes - Map U-11 Lot 080 Applicant does not meet the 50' setback requirements. Requesting a 25’ variance from road set back to construct a 26 x 28 foot garage. CEO Denial submitted into public record. The Building Ordinance states in section IV, subsection D-1 a 50’ setback from the road ROW for all new construction. Discussion: JB: would a garage fit on the right side? CEO: Still not meeting the set back requirements. The Board addressed the 4 Hardship Criteria:
1. “The Land in Question can not yield a reasonable return unless the variance is requested”
Discussion: JB: Do you have any numbers to support your response? Applicant feels this is an unreasonable question. LA: It’s not the best return it’s a reasonable return. Applicant wants to know reason for set-backs? LA: Town People voted on the Town Ordinances, and BOA members need to uphold. Applicant wants to know how residents are to know about changes. JB: Public Hearings or Meetings are posted in the newspapers, on the town bulletin board and now that the town has a web site, it gets posted there as well.
* Motion to Deny. The appellant has not shown evidence that the property is non marketable and there are no other beneficial uses. 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 – (3) No, (1) Yes MIM
3. “The Granting of the Variance will not alter the essential character of the Locality”
* Motion to accept. MIM/DV – Unanimous
4. “The Hardship is not the result of action taken by the appellant or a prior owner”
* Motion to accept. DV/LA. – Unanimous.
*Motion to deny application due to applicant not meeting all (4) Hardship Criteria. DV/LA – Unanimous. TT will let the applicant know in writing by certified mail.
8. Discussion and comments from Board:
A. None.
9. Miscellaneous:
A. None.
10. Upcoming Dates:
A. Next meeting will be on September 23, 2008.
11. Adjournment:
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 PM. MIM/JB – Unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Tanya Taft, Secretary.
Approved by: Don Verrill, Chair
Otisfield Board of Appeals
Approved on: September 23, 2008
| 
