6 Church Street, Gardiner, Maine 04345
 CITY OF GARDINERBOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MONTHLY MEETING MINUTES
May 23, 2006
Present: Michael Eldridge, Chairperson Kendall Holmes
Judith Skehan Andrew MacLean
Absent: Harlan Brown Rebecca Malinowski
Also present: David Cichowski, Code Enforcement Officer (CEO)
Dorothy Morang, Recording Secretary
Janyce Chase Sara Chase Brian Winchester
Mike Adams Julianne Douglas Jason MacMaster
1.) Chair, Mike Eldridge declared a quorum with four members attending and called the meeting to order at 6:03 PM followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
2.) Roll call was taken.
Chair Eldridge explained that the Board of Appeals is an independent group, not representing the City or the appellants but for the good of Gardiner.
3.) Kendall Holmes made a motion to accept the minutes of the March 28, 2006 meeting. Andrew MacLean seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
4.) Variance Appeal
Michael W. Adams, Applicant, requests a variance of forty-nine point three feet (49.3’) from a one hundred fifty foot (150’) minimum frontage requirement to build a new (after-the-fact) two-family dwelling. The property, located at 54 Spring St., City Tax Map 37 Lot 54, is in the High Density Residential (HDR) Zoning District.
Chair Eldridge asked Recording Secretary, Dorothy Morang if all of the information was received in a timely manner and met the Ordinance requirements and if the abutter notifications were sent out as required by the Ordinance. Dorothy said yes.
Erik Stumpfel, Attorney arrived at 6:07 PM and said that he was here to advise the Board of Appeals.
Chair Eldridge asked the Board members if any of them had any conflict of interest with respect to this application. They said no. Mike Eldridge said that he does know Mike Adams’ Counsel, but it would have no bearing on his ability to make a decision on this application. Board members determined that the Applicant had standing and the application was complete.
Brian Winchester, representing Mike Adams, indicated that Mr. Adams is seeking to have occupancy in the building on 54 Spring St as a two family. He said it would not be a change in the use of the property. They would be continuing a prior use and he believes that it is a pre-existing, non-conforming use. He said if the Board lets Mike Adams get caught in the new ordinance, it would have a bad effect in the community. The new building would have a good effect. It’s a continuance of what’s always been there and there are many multi-use buildings within the abutters list. The two-unit building is already there, he’s just asking the Board to legalize it.
Kendall Holmes asked about the timeline and when the property had been bought and was there a building on it when Mike Adams bought it. Mike Adams said he bought the property from the City by Quitclaim deed. The Code Enforcement Officer looked at different ways he might make it a two-family, such as grandfathering, build it and rent for 1 year and then change to a 2-family. The town knew what he was doing; he put in two meters etc.
Andrew MacLean said to Mike Adams, you knew you were buying a vacant lot. Mike said he did and he asked the town if he could build a 2-family like his other 4 buildings. They looked at the deed and it was over the time limit. Mr. Winchester said that Mike was led along that this was going to be ok. Mike Eldridge said every document says a single family house. Judy Skehan asked if this building was the same size as the original building. Mike said smaller and further back on the lot. He met all of the setbacks; just the road frontage was too small.
6:25 PM Open meeting for public comment.
Janyce Chase, an abutter, who lives next door, said she has had quite a few problems because of the house Mike Adams built like flooding because he did what he wanted to. He put the electrical meter in after he was told to stop and he just continues to do what he wants. Mike Adams said he put the 2nd meter in this winter so he could heat the upstairs.
Erik Stumpfel, the City Attorney representing the Board said that there are three separate issues – a prior non-conforming use; whether it was an existing structure at the time of the Ordinance and the dimensional hardship variance.
David Cichowski, CEO said he found a citation in the file for a yard sale on a vacant lot that didn’t meet City Code dated 1997. Also a permit was issued for a storage shed on a vacant lot issued 5/12/97. Once a use was stopped for a year, it would lose its non-conforming use. Erik Stumpfel said if the non-conforming use is stopped for a year, it cannot be resumed. If the City demolished it more than a year before, it wasn’t in use as a 2-family and all non-conforming uses are not available.
Kendall asked Mike what was said to lead him along that it would be ok to build a 2-family house. Mike Adams read notes from the former CEO dated 9/4/03 and a memo dated 3/23/04.
Chair Eldridge asked the Board members if they had any other questions. Brian Winchester asked if a variance request can be made anytime, he doesn’t think this application should be prejudiced. Andrew said the troubling thing is that Mike Adams proceeded in violation of the permit. Brian said that doesn’t matter. The 2-family is defined by the occupancy.
Mike Eldridge said he visited the house with Mike Adams permission. Chair Eldridge noted that it is a 2-family house and was built that way.
Kendall asked how big the house was. Mike Adams said either 32’x36’ or 36’x36’. Kendall asked how many rooms each unit has. Mike Adams said each has a kitchen, bathroom, living room and bedrooms. The CEO said that the former CEO issued a stop work order because Mike was not following the permit. Kendall asked when the order was issued. Dave, the CEO said July 1, 2004. Mike Adams said the stop work order was to not finish the 2nd apartment. Mike Eldridge referred to the memo attached to the Occupancy Permit that was issued for a 1 family dwelling only and the first floor only because there were no internal stairs to the 2nd floor.
6:52 PM Close public hearing.
Chair Eldridge read each of the six criteria and the Applicant’s response to A – F. He said he visited the site, reviewed all of the paperwork and he keeps going back to the criteria, C. was it the result of action taken by the petitioner or prior owner. Mr. Adams knew full well what he was building and the permit was for a 1 family. He does not feel it is appropriate to grant this variance.
Judy Skehan thought there were two issues.
Kendall Holmes said he had heard all of the history. It is a single family house and doesn’t see why we would grant a variance. There is a feasible alternative – continue use as a single family house.
Andrew MacLean said he agrees, the standards have not been met. Mr. Winchester put great emphasis on it having always been a 2-family. We saw evidence that the 2-family use was broken. He cannot support a variance on the basis of A, B. C and agrees with the others, it is the result of the petitioner. He is quite comfortable with the City’s permit and Occupancy. In D. there are clearly other feasible alternatives. E & F are not relevant.
Judy Skehan – no comment.
Mike Eldridge made a motion that the request for a dimensional variance of 49.3’ from a 150’ frontage requirement be denied. Andrew MacLean seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
7:12 PM Break
7:00 PM Meeting resumed.
Variance Appeal
5.) Julianne B. Douglas, Applicant, requests a variance of approximately ¾ acre, thirty-two thousand three hundred sixty-nine point 2 square feet (32,369.2 S. F.) from the one hundred sixty thousand square foot (160,000 S.F.) minimum lot area requirement to locate a second home on property where pad, driveway, etc is already located. The property, located at 51 MacMaster Lane, City Tax Map 5 Lot 12C, is in the Rural (R) Zoning District.
Chair Eldridge asked if all of the information came in on time and all of the notifications made. Dorothy said yes. He noted that the Applicant has standing and the application is complete. He asked the Applicant to give an overview of the request.
Julianne Douglas said that her son Jason MacMaster owns the land that abutted land she used to own. His land has a mobile home pad and septic and driveway on it in addition to the home that he lives in. She is going through a divorce and at her age is not a candidate for a 30 year mortgage. Jason is a single parent and she thought that if she could put a doublewide on the existing pad, they could help each other out. They would extend the pad to fit the doublewide. There isn’t enough land to meet the minimum lot area for 2 homes unless they were to connect them together somehow. She doesn’t want a 22’ breezeway and feels it would be a fire hazard. Her nephew, one of the abutters, was going to deed the additional land to them, but the bank won’t give him
a partial release for a year. At that time, they will get the additional land needed.
Andrew MacLean asked where the nephew’s abutting property is. Julie showed him on the map.
Kendall Holmes asked if the Ordinance allows two commonly owned houses on one lot. The CEO said yes and indicated the dimensional requirements needed. Kendall asked if you can put two houses on one septic system and well. Erik Stumpfel said yes. Erik also reviewed the difference between the minimum lot area requirements for 2 single family homes VS a Multi-family dwelling and a 2-family dwelling.
Kendall asked about the setbacks, between the two buildings. Erik said you have to consider the side setbacks because it is a functional split. You have to think of it as a division even thought it is not being conveyed. David said he recommended 60’ between the two buildings, but the Applicant said it was not possible because the existing 2nd septic system, well and pad would be too far away from the building.
7:50 PM Meeting opened to public – no comment
7:50 PM Close public hearing.
Chair Eldridge read the Criteria and Applicant’s responses to A – F.
Andrew MacLean said that he leans towards granting the variance. In A there are unique circumstances of the property. It is similar to one we looked at previously – a family compound and re-using existing slab. B. It would not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. C. It is not the result of prior actions. D. No other feasible alternatives if both want separate homes. E & F are not relevant.
Mike Eldridge said that in response to A, the property & existing footprint and septic and well make it unique circumstances. B. It would not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood. C. Agree with Julianne’s response. D. Tried to gain additional land from abutting land owners. E & F irrelevant. He is leaning towards granting the application.
Judy Skehan said she agrees with Andrew and Mike.
Kendall Holmes said there is clearly enough land and if the circumstances were different, he could add on because there is enough land for a 2-family house. He doesn’t see a problem. This won’t open the door to split the land and sell. It is a unique circumstance.
Judy asked why we would be concerned about selling later on. Mike explained that if we grant the variance, they couldn’t split the land without clearing other hurdles.
Andrew MacLean moved that we accept the Application with respect to minimum lot area and side setback. Judy seconded the motion.
A discussion followed about the area between the two dwellings. There is only 30’ total and there needs to be 60’.
Andrew amended the motion to grant the lot size difference of 32,369.2 S.F. and 15’ side setbacks for both sides between the houses. Judy Skehan seconded the amended motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
Andrew MacLean said he focused on the plot that is there and that it is unique. The City benefits from it as it was a vacant slab. One of the things he thought about is the family and the economic circumstances and helping each other. It would not be feasible in any other way.
Erik Stumpfel said if you look at the practicality of it – the loss of her home, the economic situation of the applicant and the cost to create a new pad, septic and well somewhere else – he feels the Board is on very good ground.
OTHER BUSINESS
5.) Adjourn
Chair Eldridge adjourned the meeting at 8:14 PM
| 
