6 Church Street, Gardiner, Maine 04345
 CITY OF GARDINERBOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MONTHLY MEETING MINUTES
January 18, 2005
(Postponed from January 5, 2005 due to inclement weather)
Roll Call: Present:
Peter Johnson
Michael Eldridge
Kendall Holmes
Andrew MacLean
Rebecca Malinowski
Absent:
Judith Skehan
Frank Hillman
Also present:
Barbara E. McPheters, Code Enforcement Officer (CEO)
Dorothy Morang, Recording Secretary
Robert Saucier
Ed Dahl
1.) The meeting was called to order at 5:34 PM by Peter Johnson, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
2.) Roll call was taken.
3.) Consideration of the Minutes from the December 13, 2004.
Mike Eldridge made a motion to accept the December 13, 2004 minutes. Kendall Holmes seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
4.) Variance
Robert M. Saucier requests a variance of two (2) feet from the ten (10) foot side setback requirement for a garage. The property, located at 19 Sherburne Avenue, is within a High Density Residential Zoning District, City Tax Map 39, Lot 21.
Chair Johnson read the variance request.
Barbara McPheters, CEO indicated that it is her understanding that previous CEOs issued permits for similar construction expansion as long as the expansion did not extend any further into the setback area. She did not find in the Ordinance where that is permitted. That is why the Board of Appeals is seeing this. She also noted that she had spoken with Leon Hinkley, the abutter on the right hand side of the property from the street and he had no objection to the construction.
Peter Johnson noted a history of lots similar to this. The way these older lots were designed limits the use. The Board of Appeals has kept that in mind when granting past variances – not granting them on the grounds that they were something extraordinary but on the grounds that we kept with what the standards were of the old property lines and the lines of the houses involved.
5:40 PM Andrew MacLean arrived.
Kendall Holmes asked about the roofline, if it’s the same, why can’t it be moved over two (2) feet?
Robert Saucier explained that the existing building has a carriage house style roofline. The proposed, attached building would continue that roofline. He explained that he would loose more than two (2) feet when he attaches the building. If he moves the building over more it would diminish the garage addition’s functionality by restricting its useable square footage.
Mike Eldridge asked if the Applicant intends to access the new building from the old. Robert said yes.
Kendall asked where the driveway was. Robert said the driveway is a right-of-way with limited use. Ed Dahl, who granted the right-of-way, said he did not object.
Peter about the existing building. Robert said it is 6’ – 7’ to the property line. His existing house is 8’ the property line also.
Kendall asked about the driveway. Robert said the driveway was a little short driveway and he has always driven across the lawn to get into that building. Mr. Dahl has given him a 15’ right-of-way on the left side of the property to access this property on a limited basis
Peter said part of this process is meeting the Standards. He read the Applicant’s responses to the questions – A. - F.
Andy MacLean asked if this is the only place this addition can be placed. Robert said yes. Andy asked if the property was flat ground in that area. Robert said yes.
Kendall asked whether there isn’t a decent design that could be done? Robert said moving it two (2) feet would diminish the useable space. Kendall asked if the two saltbox style buildings were joined to each other would it work? Robert said it would be difficult to join the existing roofline to the new roofline. The plan that he has would look like the building had been always been there.
Kendall Holmes moved to end the discussion. Rebecca Malinowski seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Kendall Holmes moved to approve the variance. Mike Eldridge seconded to motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Chair Peter Johnson asked for each Board members rationale.
Rebecca Malinowski said that she agrees that the Applicant met the six conditions.
Mike Eldridge said it makes sense. It would be a hardship to move it over.
Kendall Homes said that the Applicant has met the six conditions.
Andy MacLean looks like practical difficulty. It is esthetically better.
Peter Johnson said he agrees that the Applicant met the six conditions.
Chair Johnson wished the Applicant well on his project.
OTHER BUSINESS
Barbara McPheters discussed with Board members the possibility of changing the date for the monthly meetings. It was agreed upon to change the meeting date to the 4th Tuesday of each month when there is an application.
Members asked about the status of the Remand (Sunspot Appeal) that they had sent back to the Planning Board. Barbara said the Planning Board would review it the next day and it would depend on what the Planning Board decides whether it would come back to this Board.
Training was re-scheduled to Tuesday, January 25, 2005 at 6:00 PM in the City Council Chambers.
5.) Adjourn
Andrew MacLean made a motion to adjourn. Mike Eldridge seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Meeting adjourned at 6:01 PM
| 
