6 Church Street, Gardiner, Maine 04345
 CITY OF GARDINERBOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MONTHLY MEETING MINUTES
May 25, 2005
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
David Owen
1.) Peter Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:02 PM, Chair followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
2.) Roll call was taken.
3.) Andrew MacLean made a motion to accept the February 22, 2005 minutes. Mike Eldridge seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
PUBLIC HEARING - Variance
David R. Owen requests a variance of one hundred eighteen (118) feet from the two hundred (200) foot frontage requirement for a multi-family dwelling at 102 Highland Avenue on Map 36 Lot 146 in the High Density Residential (HDR) Zoning District.
Mr. Owen introduced himself and indicated that he lives at 102 Highland Avenue. In addition to the three family home, there is a 30’x40’ post and beam barn. He would like to convert the second story to living space, one (1) apartment. He does not have enough frontage to meet the two-hundred (200) foot requirement of the Ordinance. He has eighty-two (82) feet. He would like a variance of one hundred eighteen (118) feet.
The parking does not conform to the code as is. He did a layout of the parking showing eleven (11) parking spaces, a turn-around and the two (2) parking spaces in the barn. The code only requires eight (8) spaces, but he has planned for additional for guests use.
He plans to hook up to water and sewer by running pipes from the house to the barn.
Peter asked about the parking. Barbara McPheters, Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) indicated that if the variance is approved, Mr. Owen would then need to go to the Planning Board for approval to include the parking.
Andy asked if the neighbors were ok with this. Mr. Owen said he has not heard of anything. Barbara said that the next door neighbor has a problem with this due to the planned removal of vegetation.
Andy asked about the standards. Barbara said this was an expansion under the Ordinance, a new multi-family.
Kendall asked if a variance is required for the side setback as well. It appears that the barn is four (4) feet from the neighbor’s barn. The Ordinance says thirty (30) feet. Is it up to the CEO or the Board to decide? Barbara indicated that it was the Board’s decision. Peter said that Mr. Owen has to meet all of the criteria, A – F in the Ordinance. Kendall asked if we were not talking about a freestanding building, but putting a 4th unit in a 3-unit house would it still apply? Barbara said yes, although the thirty (30) foot setback it’s not what Mr. Owen currently has, the Board could grant a variance.
Kendall asked if the driveway setback was a minimum of ten (10) feet? Peter indicated that there is plenty of room as indicated in Mr. Owen’s plan for the parking and driveway and to meet the ten (10) foot setback. David said his property line is under the eaves of his neighbor’s house. Peter said the parking falls under the Planning Board and the Board of Appeals can make a recommendation that they make sure the parking is ok. Andy asked if because the driveway is not being moved, would it have to comply with the addition setback on the side. Peter said the Board of Appeals would look at the setback on the side and front and the Planning Board deals with parking. The Planning Board can say no and it can be appealed to the Board of Appeals.
6:34 PM Opened meeting to public. No public comment.
6:34 PM Closed meeting to public.
Chair Johnson read each of the conditions to be met for a variance and the Appellant’s response and polled the Board members on each condition.
5 agree
4 agree, 1 (Mike Eldridge) does not agree because of the additional parking.
5 agree
5 agree
5 agree
5 agree
Board members asked about the required thirty (30) feet setback. Could they ask the Appellant to orally amend this permit? Andy indicated that Mr. Owen has done a fair amount of design work with respect to the parking, but that is the responsibility of the Planning Board. Andy said he thinks Mr. Owen could come back to this Board after meeting with the Planning Board, but shouldn’t amend it today. Mike thought the abutters should know about the side setback issue and therefore, it should not be amended. Peter said the request is for a frontage variance only and doesn’t think we should be discussing this. Andy said he disagrees. The two notices were general enough. Barbara said the notice was, but the Application was specific and an abutter came in and reviewed the application
and did not know about the side setback issue.
Barbara said that she would talk with the City’s attorney.
Kendall moved that we approve the granting of the Minimum Frontage Variance of the City’s required two-hundred (200) foot frontage and the Appellant having eighty-two (82) feet. Andy seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 1 opposed (Mike Eldridge). Motion passed.
Mike Eldridge – With respect to Mr. Owen’s request, he wondered if this large variance, eighty-two (82) – two-hundred (200) foot was setting a precedence and doesn’t think we should go there. He was also concerned about the required thirty (30) foot side setback and the neighbors not being made aware of it.
Rebecca Malinowski – Felt that it met all six (6) justifications of a variance.
Andrew MacLean – He put part of the emphasis on Standards A & B. In A, you are dealing with a longstanding neighborhood in the downtown area and thinks that given the lot layouts in that area, a variance would be required for virtually any change in that area. With respect to B, he doesn’t see a change from three (3) to four (4) as undesirable.
Kendall Holmes – A and B are the crux of this. The existing lots in this area are narrow in width and to do anything would require a variance and we should be encouraging it. If it is done well, it can produce a desirable change of character of the neighborhood.
Peter Johnson, Chair – He agrees. Non-conforming lots are difficult to work with. He does not think this will change the character of the neighborhood.
Barbara will contact the City Solicitor on the question of whether Mr. Owen needs another variance. In addition, Mr. Owen will need to file for a site plan review.
Barbara indicated to Mr. Owens that we would get the findings out by next Tuesday. The Variance would then need to be filed by Mr. Owen at the Kennebec County Registry of Deeds.
5.) Adjourn
Andrew MacLean made a motion to adjourn. Rebecca Malinowski seconded the motion.
Vote: 5 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Meeting adjourned at 7:05 PM
| 
