York Town News
Witham case back to Board of Appeals
By Melissa Wood
YORK - Time, or, more specifically, items that have been around for some time, was the unifying factor at last Wednesday's Appeals Board meeting.The two items under consideration at the Jan. 10 meeting were a wetlands application first applied for in 1999 and a seasonal conversion that was first granted, but not carried out, in 1997. The discussion also veered into the issue of whether the ordinance language was contradictory, an issue that has come up a few times before.
The first item concerned property on Mill Pond Road owned by Frank Witham, who originally applied for a wetlands and shoreland permit in 1999. The permit was denied and subsequently appealed in 2001. The applicant asked for the appeal to be tabled and, for whatever reason, it languished.
In July of 2005, the board determined that the appeal's pending status be denied and that the application no longer be considered pending since the town's ordinance had changed and the Shoreland-Wetland Committee that originally reviewed the site was no longer in existence.
However, the Maine Superior Court disagreed with the board's decision, finding in November that the appeal was still pending. The court also remanded the case back to the Appeals Board to either approve or deny based on whether Witham's 2003 site plan met the conditions of the 1999 ordinance.
The board decided to defer the matter until the Feb. 28 meeting, allowing two weeks for the applicant to submit any further paperwork and an additional two weeks for Code Enforcement Officer Tim DeCoteau to review the application and make a recommendation.
A couple of the abutters were not happy with this timeframe.
Lewis Stowe called the four-week review "very burdensome on abutters" and asked for 90 days to allow time for the abutters to obtain professional opinions on drainage, wetlands, the lot plan and building design.
"I'm not asking for three years or anything like that," said Stowe, who also asked that abutters be granted access to the property. "I just want to make sure that we have standing."
Appeals Board Chairman Michael Swant said the issue of access was outside the board's jurisdiction.
"It is private property and would be a civil matter," he said.
Attorney Greg Orso, who is representing Witham in the appeal, said the abutters appeared to have the perception that the town worked only for them.
"The reality is that the town works for the owner, too," he said.
The board's second item of the night concerned Eugene Engholm's request for a special exception to convert a seasonal property on Ocean Avenue Extension to a full-year residence. A special exception had been granted to the property's previous owner in 1997, but the owner did not convert the property at that time since he had been granted special exceptions on two properties and was only allowed to convert one.
After two years, the special exception expired, requiring a new application be made by Engholm, who recently purchased the property. A special exception is needed since the property doesn't meet setback or lot coverage requirements for a seasonal conversion.
The board granted the request, making it conditional that Engholm move or replace the garage on the property so that it is no closer than 10 feet to abutting property lines.
At the same time, board members and DeCoteau got into a discussion about contradictory language in section 18.8.2.2 of the zoning ordinance, which concerns special exceptions. DeCoteau called the ordinance unfair because, if the language in that section is followed precisely, the board would never be allowed to grant special exceptions.
However, board member Leon Moulton did not want the board to go too far in the opposite direction.
"I don't think we should ignore the ordinance and always grant a special exception," he said.
DeCoteau said problems with the zoning ordinance should be handled by the Planning Board or Board of Selectmen, but that the Appeals Board should bring it to their attention. The issue has been brought up by the board before.
"When was the last time you wrote to the Planning Board about it?" DeCoteau asked the board. "I don't think it's really reasonable to be critical of them unless you've sent them a letter, and they've ignored it, and you sent a second letter, and they ignored it."
The board has decided to hold a work session to discuss the contradictory language in the zoning ordinance. It currently has one appeal pending, which will be addressed at its next meeting on Jan. 24.
