Town of Buxton
Board of Appeals
The Town of Buxton Board of Appeals will hold a Public Hearing at the Buxton Municipal Building on the Portland Road, Buxton, Maine on:
Tuesday, December 4, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
Recorded by: Krystal Dyer
Members in attendance: Stephen Heroux, Jack Hanna, Dennis Santolucito, Peter Leavitt and Charlene Libby.
Members not in attendance: none
Others in attendance: Carrie Logan and Brad Perkins
Call to Order : Chair, Stephen Heroux explains the two kinds of appeals and the procedure for tonight's meeting.
Barbara Dresser, Trustee of property at 7 & 9 Cady Lane has filed an Administrative Appeal for a lot line amendment for two non-conforming lots in the same ownership. Referencing the requirements set forth in 4.2.F.3 for non-conforming lots. The two parcels are located in the Residential and Shoreland Zones; Tax Map 1A, Lots 111 & 112.
" Stephen moved to open the public hearing to hear the administrative appeal on behalf of Barbara Dresser, seconded by Charlene, the motion passed with a 5 - 0 vote.
Carrie Logan of Preti Flaherty representing Barbara Dresser has been working with Code Officer Fred Farnham to come up with a practical solution to separately convey lots 111 and 112 on 7 & 9 Court Way. The wrinkle was to accommodate septic systems adequate for each lot. At Fred's request they had an HHE200 by Site Evaluator Ken Gardner, this was submitted and approved by DHHS. There is only so many square feet to deal with on each lot. One lot will meet the States minimum lot size with over 100 feet of frontage containing more the 20,000 square feet, making that lot more non-conforming than it was. The split improves the overall situation for the town, the pond and the residents. This is a win win situation for a real environmental problem.
Stephen states this administrative appeal has no relevance to the administrative appeal heard back on August 7th by the same applicant, based on a decision handed out by the Code Enforcement Officer. Any information heard during that presentation has no relevance to this case. Unless its represented tonight.
They have two contiguous lots under single ownership existing prior to the establishment of the ordinances. Stephen reads 4.2.F.3 of the ordinance. "If two or more contiguous lots or parcels are in single or joint ownership of record at the time of adoption or amendment of this Ordinance, if all or part of the lots do not meet the dimensional requirements of this Ordinance, and if a principal use exists on each lot, the non-conforming lots may be conveyed separately or together providing the State Minimum Lot Size Law and Subsurface Waste Water Disposal Rules are complied with. If two or more principal uses existed on a single lot of record on the effective date of this Ordinance, each may be sold on a separate lot." There is a single deed that lists two separate lots.
Charlene asked if we know if this section is part of the original ordinance? Has this been amended since the original ordinance? Stephen said the original deed existed prior to 1986. Charlene asked what changes made in the second deed? Stephen added the egresses, the Right of Ways.
Fred has agreed that they meet the requirements established in 4.2.F.3, but they need to move one of the boundary lines that is common to both properties, to facilitate a septic system. In moving the common they will create one parcel to exceed the State minimum 20,000 sq ft lot size, however the second lot will not meet the 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size. Brent Lawson sent an email dated December 4, 2012 referencing State statute 1000.6 Existing Structures: This Code does not apply to any structure in existence and in place on or before October 3, 1973, which then or theretofore disposed of wastes by means of subsurface wastewater disposal; except that no person shall reduce the size of the lot upon which such structure is located to a size or frontage less than that allowed in Section 1001.1. The division of
a lot upon which a number of such structures existed on or before October 3, 1973, into a number of lots not exceeding the number of structures, with on or more structures on each new lot is not subject to this Code, if the size of the lot, and/or the frontage has not been reduced since October 3, 1973."
Stephen summarizes: If they were two structures already on this preexisting non-conforming lot, under single ownership, it is grandfathered from as long no alterations were done to the diminutions. Where 42f3 would normally require the State minimum lot size law its Actually grandfathered due to this 1000.1 State ordinance. With that we are looking at determining if the administrative appeal should go through with the approval change with the boundary and not to go below the 20,000 sq ft.
Ask applicant any further questions: Charlene asked which exhibit map shows recommended lot line split for the reconfiguration. Ms. Logan confirmed the correct map reconfiguration and lot sizes. For clarification Stephen said Lot #111 needs the new septic and lot #112 has the existing leachfield which needs the lot configuration is for.
Dennis asked if the pond frontage change. No they remained the same. The disposal systems are located cross Court Way, which is a private road. Yes, Krystal confirmed that Court Way is a Private Road.
The septic design was approved with a variance for the well being reduced to 87 feet to the neighbors well, by Fred and Brent Lawson from DHHS. This is referenced in Fred's letter dated December 4, 2012
Having no further questions from the Board or any public comments:
" Stephen motions to close the public hearing, Charlene seconded, the motion passed with a 5 - 0 vote.
Stephen said the change the common boundary between the two lots and includes the existing septic on lot 112. He is comfortable in moving the boundary by allowing the square footage requested and use the square footage as boundary change. Also they do not have to meet the state lot sizes as determined in the letter, but do need an appropriate waste water disposal system. We could make a condition to have the septic design approved.
Charlene questioned that this is not an approval; it's just a request for a septic design. Krystal said the septic plan was approved by Brent Lawson at DHHS. At that, Charlene said we should make it conditional on that approval. Charlene also asked how did they get the house and deck so close the lot line. All the lots around the pond are very small. What exactly are we approving? Stephen said the changing of the boundary line. Peter questioned why they need permission from us? Because it existed as two lots under one ownership. We need to decide as a Board what is the best movement of the property line how it will create the least non-conforming issues, how it affects the abutters and the community and he Code officer cannot make this decision. Looking at
4.2.F.3 the ordinance it specifically directs you to the BOA, but this section does not. If there was no boundary movement, Fred could approve it.
Having no other questions:
" Stephen motion to grant the administrative appeal allowing the common boundary change between lots 111 and 112, to accommodate the existing septic system and ending up with lot 111's having a total of 25,125 sq ft. and lot 112 at 11,750 sq.ft. This comes with the conditional approval that they are granted the variance for septic design on lot 111. Seconded by Charlene.
Discussion: Peter asked why aren't we working off a professionally boundary survey, how do I know this is accurate? Charlene said it would have to be done at some point because the bank would require one and as long as they meet the square footage requirements and accommodate the two leachfield the Board has meet all our responsibilities.
" Stephen amends the motion by adding to common boundary "as detailed in the lot plan submitted". Charlene seconded amendment, the motion is approved with a 5 - 0 vote.
Approval of Minutes:
May 1, 2012 -
" Motioned by Stephen, seconded by jack to approve the minutes as written. The motion passed with a 4 - 0, and 1 abstention from Dennis who was not in attendance.
August 7, 2012 -
" Motioned by Stephen, seconded by jack to approve the minutes of May 1, 2012 as written. 3 - 0, with two 2 abstentions from Peter and Charlene who were not in attendance.
CEO Report: None, not in attendance.
Approval of bills: Approve to pay Maine Municipal Association $40.00 for a Class attended by board member Dennis Santolucito on October 16, 2012.
" Motioned by Stephen, seconded by Charlene to pay Maine Municipal association $40 for the seminar fee, a unanimous vote.
~The Board had one of our decisions appealed by an abutter, they applied to Superior Court to overturn our decision. The court upheld our decision on November 15th, 2012. This case will add additional clarification to the ordinance that had a gray area in it. Charlene asked if a building permit was issued for the property. A building permit was issued, but was held due to the appeal.
~ Maine Townsman - August/September, October and November issues.
Everyone received a copy of the new ordinance book with the amendments voted on at the November general election.
The change to the ordinance is requirement for the buildable area to 20,000 square feet. It changed on two levels 4.2.F1 and 4.2.F.4 and 9.6, addendum 6.
If lots under 20,000 sq ft - they still can appeal to the State. Has expanded the buildable made it less difficult. If less than 20,000 sq ft.
Charlene would like some clarification in what our role would be and how to handle it
Buildable area discussion: 9.4 #6 if the buildable area requirement using this formula will give the ratio of building area for a non conforming lot. Does is take into consideration wetlands? No, half of the lot needs to be buildable. This rule makes it better for the non-conforming lot owners.
Motion by to close the meeting at 7:49 p.m. seconded by Charlene unanimous vote
Approval Date: __________
Stephen Heroux, Chairman Signature Date