York Town News
Appeals Board overturns merged lots by 3-2 vote as ordinance heads to the polls Nov. 7
By Larry Favinger
YORK - It wouldn't be an Appeals Board meeting if there weren't controversy about the town's contiguous lot ordinance.Last week's appeal of this now well-known non-conforming contiguous lots ordinance that the board finds to be onerous, but usually supports, came from Evelyn G. Hackett of 188 Long Sands Road. It focused on the board's Sept. 13 rejection of an appeal of merging two lots purchased from the town in the 1950s without previous notice.
When all was said and done at the Oct. 11 meeting, the board voted 3-2 to reverse its previous decision, granting the appeal separating the two lots.
Peggy Bridges told the board during its meeting at the York Public Library that she was "upset" last month when the board voted to support the Code Enforcement Office's decision to combine the two lots.
"She still owned the property but can't do anything with it," she said of her mother. "She counted on that lot to keep her in her own home. … When you vote, I hope you use your heart."
Michael Swant, who reelected chairman of the board earlier in the meeting, referred to Bridges' plea prior to the vote.
"I wish I could do that," he said, "but I can't."
Swant, who later voted against the appeal, has continually voted to uphold the ordinance, although stating he thinks it is unfair. Peter O'Connor joined him in voting against the appeal.
Appeals Board Vice Chairman Joseph Carr, member Leon Moulton and associate member Kevin Brown voted to grant the appeal. Brown was serving in place of regular member Gene Sullivan, who was unable to attend.
Since this was asking for the reconsideration of a previous vote, the board first had to agree to reopen the appeal. That decision, also by a 3-2 vote, came after another lengthy discussion of the ordinance and how it is applied.
Following that action, there was a suggestion that the appeal be taken up at a later meeting but Carr, who was reelected vice chairman at the start of the meeting, responded. "Let's do it tonight."
Attorney Greg Orso, who has argued against this ordinance several times before the board, represented the appellant.
"We all know the result that should be here," he said opening his presentation. "The town has not treated these people fairly."
He used a faulty 401K as an example, suggesting a person pays into the account for years and then when the person comes to use the money they're told there's nothing there. That is what happens, he explained, when people invest in a lot for retirement and then find out when they go to use or sell it that it doesn't exist - despite paying property taxes and associated costs for nearly 50 years.
"That's what the town has done to these people," he said. "This land is needed to take care of a loved one."
Orso said changes in zoning can impact the conditions of the lot and how it can be used, but "it should not make it disappear. The ordinance allows for these lots to remain separate."
William Hackett, the appellant's son, said his parents purchased the two lots in 1954, one for a home, the other as an investment, because "it's like money in the bank," saying the town took that money out of the bank by combining the lots.
"She needs that investment," he said, adding that his mother requires care 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Tim DeCoteau, the town's code enforcement officer, said that ordinance is clear, calling for contiguous nonconforming lots under the same ownership to be merged.
"I would like to find for them," he said, but added he must follow the ordinance.
Moulton said this case is nothing new under this particular ordinance.
"We've debated it until it's worn out," he said, adding that for more than 50 years the town has misled and over-billed the Hacketts for that piece of property. "When they're not clear," he said of ordinances, "the benefit should go to the applicant."
In this case, it did.
Voters will have a chance to weigh in on this ordinance at the polls on Nov. 7.
In other action, the board granted an appeal to allow Henry Sullivan of 12 Ocean Edge Lane to put an office above his garage to include a toilet and a sink. Sullivan also wanted to include a shower, but the board rejected that part of the application saying to do so would make it living space, which is not allowed in this case.
The board also directed code enforcement to issue a building permit to Dana J. Willis of 280 Main St, Andover, Mass., for work on property at 121 Western Point Road. An administrative appeal for the work had been rejected by the board and appealed to York County Superior Court, which reversed the decision.
