York Town News
Appeals Board approves two cases: votes one project up, one down
By Jennifer L. Saunders
YORK - The Board of Appeals heard two cases at its most recent meeting, voting one appellant could build a front porch on her home and that a second appellant was right to fight his neighbor's new addition.The board met on Wednesday, Sept. 27, at the York Public Library to hear the two cases with Chairman Michael Swant and board members, Gene Sullivan, Joe Carr, Leon Moulton, Peter O'Connor and alternate Bob Lascelles in attendance. The first appeal was a request for a minor dimensional variance from Timothy and Kara Pidgeon of Riverbend Road. Kara Pidgeon brought letters of support from her neighbors for the addition of a front porch and no one spoke in opposition at the meeting.
The denial, Code Enforcement Officer Tim DeCoteau explained, was based on a front yard setback for the proposed deck.
"Although it may be nice, it does not meet the requirements of the ordinance," O'Connor said. "If you want the porch, put the porch in back. … If I wanted to be a nice guy and ignore the ordinance, I'd go with the rest of you."
The majority of the board, however, disagreed, stating the request did meet the standards for the variance.
"I think it's a win-win deal," Swant said, citing the increased value of a home with a front porch or deck. "… Taxes should go up. The town gets more money."
Carr agreed, stating the variance was created to allow residents to better utilize their property for building purposes.
The Board of Appeals was split on the issue, 3-2, with O'Connor and Moulton voting against the request.
Next on the agenda, the board decided 4-1 in favor of an Administrative Appeal filed by Robert Burns, an abutter, for property owned by Stephen Rossi at 10 Raccoon Ridge in Cape Neddick.
The board's decision: that the Code Enforcement Office erred in allowing an addition to be built on the house.
However, the board acknowledged that the ordinance as written would permit the owner to tear down his home and build the addition in the same place, if the entire project were new construction.
Attorney Patrick Bedard spoke on behalf of Burns, noting that the lot requires a 50-foot setback without town water and sewer and the building permit shows the addition setback at about 23 feet.
"Clearly, it doesn't make the 50 feet," he said, pointing out that there is an existing structure on the nonconforming lot, stating that eliminates the provision for the reduced setback that would be allowed for new construction.
DeCoteau pointed out that the ordinance would allow the Rossis to tear down the house and build it with the setback as approved for the addition.
"It didn't make common sense," DeCoteau said of the contradictory provisions in the ordinance. "… These are exceptions, and that's why they were put in there."
He notes the foundation has been poured on the property, but the board determined to rule in favor of the abutter's request, stating the notice of appeal was reason for the property owner not to move forward.
For 20 years, DeCoteau said, properties in the same situation have been dealt with in the same manner without objection.
O'Connor pointed out the Appeals Board has never head a case before and, difficult as the situation is, must rule according to the members' interpretation of the zoning. In making his motion, O'Connor differentiated between the property in question as an existing dwelling with an addition and the zoning definition of new construction and/or new dwellings as the basis for the Code Enforcement Office's error in interpretation.
Carr case the one vote in opposition
The board's next meeting is scheduled for Oct .11.
