{00030026-0000-0000-C000-000000000046} CITY OF placeCityGARDINER
BOARD OF APPEALS
REGULAR MONTHLY MEETING MINUTES
September 26, 2006
Present: Michael Eldridge, Chairperson Kendall Holmes
Andrew MacLean John Burgess
Absent: Harlan Brown
Also present: Dorothy Morang, Recording Secretary
David Cichowski, Code Enforcement Officer (CEO)
Sarah J. Dick Jason R. Dick Steven C. MacMaster
1.) Chair, Mike Eldridge called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
2.) Roll call was taken.
3.) Andrew MacLean moved to approve the June 27, 2006 meeting minutes. John Burgess seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
NEW BUSINESS
Chair Eldridge introduced the next item on the agenda, the Variance Appeal from Jason Dick and asked Board members if there was any conflict of interest. They said no. He also asked Dorothy if the application was submitted on time and all notifications were made on time. She said yes.
Variance Appeal
4.) Jason Dick, Applicant, requests a variance of forty-eight feet (48’) from a one hundred foot (100’) minimum road setback requirement to construct a 28’x30’ two-car garage. The property, located at addressStreet11 Marston Rd., City Tax Map 20 placeLot 4, is in the Planned Development (PD) Zoning District.
Sarah Dick said that they wanted to build a garage to store vehicles in. She introduced her contractor, Steve MacMaster of Northern Creations. He said that if they set the garage back to meet the front setback requirement, it would be on top of the leach field. It is a small lot. The side and back setbacks are ok.
Chair Eldridge said that he looked at the property and thought that it would be very tough to fit anything into the lot and meet the front setback requirement.
John Burgess said he had also driven by and had the same feeling as Chair Eldridge. John asked if a one-car garage would have the same setback problem. Steve said yes.
Andrew MacLean asked about the lot to the left – if it was a vacant lot. Steve said yes.
Kendall Holmes asked if the garage could be moved closer to the left and then moved back. Steve said the leach field is directly across from the driveway.
Andrew noted that there is 31’ between the proposed garage and leach field and asked if the placement of the garage and house is consistent with the surrounding properties. Steve said yes.
placeKendall noted that the plan shows the garage further away from the street than the house. Jason Dick said it was.
Chair Eldridge asked Dorothy if she had received any comments written or oral. She said no. Jason indicated that he had talked with his neighbors about this and there was no opposition.
Chair Eldridge opened and closed the public hearing at 6:13 PM as there was no one from the public in attendance. He read the Applicant’s responses to the Dimensional Variance Criteria.
Chair Eldridge said that the Board has looked at the Application and had a chance to visit property and look at the footprint that is out there. He understands that every person would like to have a garage. In StateplaceMaine you have to have a garage if you have toys. He thinks it would be improper of this Board to not grant this Application based on what the Applicant’s need is. As was brought up, the house is closer to the street than the proposed garage is. He believes the Applicant has met the criteria and the justification issue and he is looking favorably at granting the Application.
Kendall Holmes said he has no problem with it. The standard is Practical Difficulty and the Applicant has expressed a Practical Difficulty. We could say to the Applicant to go back and explore moving the leach field somewhere else, but would be a fairly substantial endeavor and he has no desire to ask the Applicant to do that, especially since the system is working.
Andrew MacLean said that he too was persuaded by the Application. He focused in on the unique circumstances of the property in point A. He agrees that the garage will increase the market value of the property in B and he doesn’t see any other feasible alternative. He asked the question about the side and rear setbacks and suppose they could ask the Applicant to go back and try to move it to the left and back, but he’s persuaded that it is more esthetically appropriate to keep it at in a consistent position with respect to the house since he can’t meet the 100 foot setback even if the Applicant went back and reconfigured it.
John Burgess said that he looked at Criteria C more than the others and that was based on the fact that the Applicant purchased the property in good faith and the house was built before and somehow that must have been agreeable to the City. The garage is going to be further back and it is enhancing the property so he agrees that it wouldn’t be proper to not approve this Application.
John Burgess moved to accept this application as requested by the Dicks. Kendall Holmes seconded the motion.
Vote: 4 in favor. 0 opposed. Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS
5.) Adjourn
Kendall Holmes moved that we adjourn. Chair Eldridge closed the meeting at 6:21 PM
| 
