Town of Waldoboro
Board of Appeals
Meeting Minutes
July 20, 2004
The Board of Appeals met in the Town Office Meeting Room on Tuesday, July 20 2004. Chairman of the Board, Sam Chapman called the meeting to order at 6:57pm and roll call was done. At this time it was decided that no one on the Board had a conflict of interest.
Members present were Samuel Chapman, Art Emanuelson, and Russell Hansen. Staff present was Code Enforcement Officer John Black and Norma Hill recording secretary.
Public Present were Sarah Gladu, Tim Gladu, Linda Watkins and Donna Wilson
Minutes will be approved at the end of the meeting.
Chairman Chapman summarized this application and the appeal. This falls under Shoreland Zoning Section 15 – Lot use Standards and the variance request is under Section 16, Administration, G – Appeals, 2 – Variance Appeals.
Chairman Chapman established jurisdiction . The Board determined it has jurisdiction to hear this appeal.
Chairman Chapman’s understanding is that the appellant has standing on all requirements in filing papers was met. The Board concurs.
Mr. Hansen asked for the history of the BOA and if they had heard cases such as this. He questions the authority to grant this variance at all because of Section 16. The Town Attorney states that as long as all requirements are met then the BOA has jurisdiction.
Ms. Watkins presented her case to the Board. She went over what happened with her building contractor. She would like the main house to be renovated and to build a new small house where a mobilehome had been situated at one time. The proposal of each house would have each with their own septic system but sharing a well. She would like to sell the larger house and break even with the costs she has invested. She finds herself in a difficul financial situation and did not intend for any of this to happen.
Mr. Emanuelson asked if the variance were granted if this would create two non-conforming lots. Yes, this is what would happen.
The total acreage is 2.3. One lot with the main house would be 1.3 acres and the other lot 1.0 acre in size.
It was noted that many lots in this area were small and non-conforming.
Mr. Emanuelson asked for clarification of the drawing and map.
There are no abutters present tonight.
Ms. Gladu spoke. She is against subdividing of any kind. She asked if the gray water was in the septic and the answer is affirmative. She states lot sizes were created for a reason. Traffic is becoming an issue in this area. She says there is a bigger impact on the community with the increased traffic. She is cautiously stating that she is against more building, etc in the peninsula. She is worried about environmental impacts in this area.
Mr. Gladu spoke. He is worried about people who can’t afford to live in this area because of expensive summer homes being built and forcing local “regular” folks out.
Ms. Watkins had wanted to upgrade the main house and enhance the property with what was there for existing footprints.
Ms. Gladu stated that zoning is to plan and foresee a livable community. She worries about too much being “given out.”
Mr. Emanuelson asked CEO Black if on the tax maps this was listed as two properties. It is listed as one piece.
Chairman Chapman asked Ms. Watkins if she wanted this variance because of financial constraint. She does but she states it isn’t like she is building a new huge dwelling either. She has made sure both septics are up to code.
Motion – Mr. Hansen motioned the BOA deny the application and not grant the variance, seconded by Mr. Emanuelson.
Chairman Chapman asked Mr. Emanuelson to read the definition of hardship from the Board of Appeals Manual. Mr. Hansen went over the burden of proof needed to justify granting the variance. As sympathetic as he is to the problem of the applicant he does not feel the Board has the authority to grant this variance.
The Board then tried to find where in the ordinance financial hardship is discussed. All criteria for Shoreland Zoning are met except for dimensions and minimum lot standards. The Board is being asked to create two non-conforming lots.
Justification of Variance requirements were gone over.
1. The land in question cannot yield a reasonable return unless the variance is granted. Mr. Hansen made note that the applicant has shown proof the property will give a reasonable return, but that they would be better off subdividing the lot.
Mr. Hansen states again that something unique needs to be proven for the variance to be granted.
On item number 1 for Justification of Variance requirements the vote was 0-3 with regards to showing proof the land in question cannot yield a reasonable return unless a variance is granted. The other requirements are not needed to be heard as the variance cannot be granted with just one of the four justifications not being met.
VOTE – 3-0 to deny the application.
RECESS FOR 10 MINUTES AT 8:00 – RECONVENE AT 8:10.
Mr. Hansen states the minutes taken do not necessarily reflect what is on the tape recording of meetings. He would like the typed minutes more concise. Other ways of recording and enhancing meetings were discussed. Mr. Hansen would like a form made up to summarize the minutes.
The minutes were tabled until next meeting.
Adjournment was at 8:26 pm on motion by Mr. Hansen.