Town of Lamoine, Maine
The Official Website of Lamoine's Town Government
Home
Town Hall
School
Fire Department
Boards
Calendars
Newly Added

Board of Appeals

Minutes - December 8, 2015 (Draft, subject to correction)

Chairman Fenton reopened the meeting that began on December 2, 2015. 

Present for this meeting were Appeals Board Members Griff Fenton, Jay Fowler, Connie Bender, Jon VanAmringe, Michael Jordan; Code Enforcement Officer Millard Billings, Assistant Code Enforcement Officer Edward “Rick” Gallegos, William & Carol Shubert, Barry Mills, Stephen Salsbury, Frank (Mike) & Wendy Young, Matthew Bergin, Kathleen Rybarz and Valerie Sprague.

Minutes – December 2, 2015 – The board reviewed the minutes of December 2, 2015.  Mr. VanAmringe moved to approve the minutes as revised.  Mr. Fowler 2nd. Vote in favor was 4-0.

Shubert v. CEO / Young – Griff said the Board asked the Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) to take some measurements.  CEO Millard Billings showed his measurements compared to a map supplied by surveyor Stephen Salsbury.   He said the Salsbury map differs slightly from his calculation, and the Salsbury map is in the landowner’s favor. 

Chairman Fenton noted that the measurements from Herrick and Salsbury were received this evening.  The board marked that as Exhibit 6.  He noted that there were 10-areas enumerated on the map.  CEO Billings said if square footage for the house, garage and driveway, which are areas that will not be reseeded, it comes out to 4,773 square feet.  The allowed coverage area (10% of the Shoreland Zone) is 3,524 square feet. 

Chairman Fenton asked if there were any comments regarding the measurement.  Mr. Salsbury said he and Mr. Billings took the measurements, and they concur.  A brief explanation of the sketch followed.

Mr. Jordan said most of this is existing, and the Youngs are asking for a permit for 361-square feet.  He said the driveway was there for 3-years.  He said if the permit is denied, nothing would change, and the Youngs would have 4,700 feet of impervious land.  He said they could remediate an area of 481 square feet to equal what they already have. He said it’s already a non-conforming lot.

Chairman Fenton said that would be in the future, and he doesn’t know what the future would bring, and it could be up to the Code Enforcement Officer.  He said the Appeals Board asked the CEO to go through the check list the Planning Board uses.  He said the Board had not voted on any of the review criteria.

The Board went through the checklist individually, finding:

Review Standard

Votes

Yes

Votes

No

 

Will maintain safe and healthful conditions

4

0

 

Will not result in water pollution, erosion, or sedimentation to surface waters

4

0

 

Review Standard

Votes

Yes

Votes

No

 

Will adequately provide for the disposal of wastewater

 

 

N/A

Will not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, bird or other wildlife habitat

4

0

 

Will conserve shore cover and visual, as well as actual, points of access to inland and coastal waters

4

0

 

Will protect archaeological and historic resources as designated in the comprehensive plan

 

 

N/A

Will not adversely affect existing commercial fishing or maritime activities in a Commercial Fisheries/Maritime Activities district

4

0

 

Will avoid problems associated with flood plain development and use

4

0

 

Is in conformance with the provisions of Section 15, Land Use Standards.

 

 

 

A.        Minimum Lot Standards

4

0

 

B.        Principal and Accessory Structures

4

0

 

C.        Piers, Docks, Wharfs, Bridges and Other Structures and Uses Extending Over or Beyond the Normal High‑Water Line of a Water Body or Within a Wetland.

 

 

N/A

D.        Campgrounds

 

 

N/A

E.        Individual Private Campsites

 

 

N/A

F.         Parking Areas

 

 

N/A

G.        Roads and Driveways

4

0

 

H.        Signs

 

 

N/A

I.          Storm Water Runoff

4

0

 

J.         Septic Waste Disposal

 

 

N/A

K.        Essential Services

4

0

 

L.         Mineral Exploration and Extraction

 

 

N/A

M.       Agriculture

 

 

N/A

N.        Timber Harvesting

 

 

N/A

O.        Clearing of Vegetation for Development

4

0

 

P.        Erosion and Sedimentation Control

4

0

 

Q.        Soils

4

0

 

R.        Water Quality

4

0

 

S.        Archeological Sites

 

 

N/A

Chairman Fenton said the next issue is lot coverage from the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance.  Mr. VanAmringe said if you add up the map and include the shed area (area 9), the garage (area 5) the driveway (area 7) and the house (area 10) it equals 4,893 square feet, on an allowance of 3,524 square feet, which exceeds the allowable coverage by 1,369 square feet. Chairman Fenton said that does not include the proposed breezeway area. Mr. VanAmringe said the question before the Board is that the application asks for a permit for area 4 of the sketch, a 361 square foot breezeway for a property that already exceeds the allowable coverage area.  He said he’s not sure that it’s within the Board’s purview to get to a lower number, as that would require a revised application.  He said there are several options, but the item before the board is what exists. 

Chairman Fenton said he agreed that the issue is a non-conforming lot that is asking for 361 square feet more.  He said he didn’t know how the Appeals Board could grant a permit.  He said he did not mean to impugn any previous permits issued by Code Enforcement. 

Mr. Fowler said if it were close, perhaps something could be worked out, but with the numbers that the Board has, but lot coverage is too much.  Mr. VanAmringe said it’s not the Board’s job to come up with a creative solution.  He said the job is to tell the applicant that he has a problem.  A brief discussion followed on the numbers in relation to the amount of lot coverage.

Mr. Mills said the issue is more than re-seeding.  Chairman Fenton said the lot coverage is the determining factor.  Chairman Fenton said it appears to be 1,369 square feet over.  Mr. Young said he understands what is going on and will accept the decision and go back to work to revise the plan.

Ms. Bender moved to find that the Board of Appeals must deny the permit application.  Mr. VanAmringe 2nd.  Chairman Fenton said because this is a de novo hearing, the application starts over.  Mr. Fowler asks if that means the Appeals Board finds that the applicant did something incorrectly.  Chairman Fenton explained that the ruling is only on the application before the board and is not in regard to wrong doing.  Vote in favor of the motion to deny was 4-0.

Mr. Mills said there was some mention of re-seeding.  Mr. Bergin asked how that was relevant. Chairman Fenton said if Mr. Mills wished to speak, that’s fine.  Mr. Mills said there are standards for revegetation in the guidelines for municipal Shoreland zoning ordinances.  He said there are extensive non-vegetated areas, and there are requirements under the mandatory law.  Chairman Fenton said that information may be beneficial to the Youngs.  Mr. Mills said that is from a state document.

A brief discussion followed on local and state standards.

Ordinance Workshop – Mr. VanAmringe said he’s marked up the changes in the proposed ordinance and asked to forward to the Planning Board, mentioning that it’s a working draft and the Appeals Board is looking for early input from the Planning Board.

Next Meeting – The next meeting will be at the call of the chair.

Other – Kathleen Rybarz requested that she be listed in the attendance of the last meeting.  She asked what public input is accepted for writing the proposed ordinance.  Chairman Fenton said the meetings are public, and comment can be accepted any time.  Mr. VanAmringe said they welcome input from anyone and encouraged attendance at the working session.  He said the next session will be following the input from the Planning Board. He said the Appeals Board solicits comments from every meeting. 

Valerie Sprague asked if the Appeals Board plans to attend the site walk at the Gott pit next weekend.  Chairman Fenton said the Planning Board issued the permit, and did not implement the suggestions from the Appeals Board.

CEO Billings said the site visit Saturday is not about the building.  He said it is for the gravel permit application and has nothing to do with the building.  Mrs. Sprague asked if it had to do with bordering the property.  CEO Billings said the buffering issue is the only thing to do with the building property.  A brief discussion of the Gott building followed.  Chairman Fenton said the Appeals Board involvement is over unless something else comes up.

There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:06 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

Jon VanAmringe, Secretary

jva:sem (compiled from Lamoine CTV recording)