Fort Fairfield Zoning Board Grants One-Time Variance for Land Sale

[0:00] Jeff Murchison: All right, I [0:07] Town staff/planner facilitating meeting: appreciate you guys coming together tonight. I know it has been a while, and I kind of mentioned this beforehand, but [0:17] Chris Condon: because it's been over 20 years, the town hasn't recognized a chair of the zoning board [0:23] Town staff/planner facilitating meeting: of appeals. So I will facilitate the opening of the meeting to kind of get it started and get a vote for board chair, and then turn it over to the to the board members. So first call, first order of business is a call to order. As we've already done that, the meeting has started at 5 30. Roll call. We have all four current members, Gary Casas, George McLaughlin, Jeffrey Murchison, and Kendall Shaw present, and that does exceed the quorum, so we can proceed with the meeting. Second order of business is call for nominations for a board chair. [1:04] Jeff Murchison: I nominate Jeff Murchison. I second it. All right, we have a motion that we have a second on a [1:13] Town staff/planner facilitating meeting: nomination of Jeff Murchison. Any other nominations? Any conversation necessary at this point? Thanks, Stewards. All right, all in favor of Jeffrey Murchison as the chair of the zoning board of appeals, say aye. Excellent, that's unanimous, and at this point I will relinquish the meeting [1:35] Denise: to Jeff Murchison. You can operate right from there with no, and I thank you guys really for the love of my heart, and welcome everybody here. I personally have read the request for a variance, looked at the plot lap of the plan for the lot change and the proposed sale, and I read, I believe, the correct part of the ordinance as it relates to variances, and I would ask each board member, have you familiarized yourself with what we're allowed and not allowed to do? Yes. Okay, have you all read the letter from Chris Condon and his the field? I have. Yes, I have. Okay, does anyone in the audience have anything to add that might make a difference in our opinion, or I don't know if my speaking will make it worse, [2:51] Chris Condon: but I'd love to just summarize where we are, just in case. I'm here to tell us what you get. Yeah, so I'm Chris Condon. I know a few people here, so I'm representing the Main Community Trails tonight. We're the organization that bought and reopened the Prior Guard and Carry Center for the community. And so one of my tasks with this facility is trying to right-size it, and that means eliminating some of the buildings and selling a little bit of land to make this more manageable. So the sale in front of you, kind of from a big picture perspective, is one I think that's good for all parties. For us, it's one building we don't need, that we don't need to maintain and insure and so forth. It has our neighbor, Keaton Sears here, that this is good for her family. It gives them some storage space, a little more room for her kids, a little more land, and it's quite frankly, they could count. It's a little more small dollars, but a little bit of that tax money. So the big picture seems to be something that makes sense for all parties. Aaron shared with me the document of kind of what you all have to go through in terms of making a decision. There's kind of four parts to it. So when I look at it from my perspective, then I'll be curious to see and hear comments and any questions you have, but these four parts, no reason will return, basically if we all don't allow this sale, the buildings work nothing, and so I think we passed that one. Unique circumstances, I think this is particularly unique. I'm talking with Aaron and the history of Gallagher paid over there 45 years ago, which is really funny to be full circle. Character locality doesn't change anything. The one question that I think you all have to debate is really this last one around not self-created, that we are creating a new bottom line I guess, and in terms of thinking about the definition of words, but when I think about this particular project, what we're asking you to view here is this property. Aaron is sharing with me that I don't think 70, 60, 70 years ago when some of this stuff was built, all these rules, what's happening, I think it was like a lot of the good rules that we deal with today were not in existence then, and so it was a family. Ralph lived in the homestead and Donald lived up above them, so they had a shared well that will also be included in the sale to Sears. So what we're asking in the end is basically we got a grandfathered property where the lot line is just south of this building, this machine shed. What we're asking for you to do is not create something new, but simply move that grandfatheredness, that's a word, from the south side of the building to the north side of the building. We're about 10 feet now, we're going to be about 10 feet after, and when it makes it a win for everybody. So if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer anything about this project. [5:45] Jessica: Thank you Chris. Could hcu have anything to add or other than I fully support that sale. It really does benefit our family a lot. The if you can see on the left side of the driveway we have like the u-shaped driveway the left side where they go back to that building. We have four young kids and my youngest being four it's very close to our house so and Chris everybody has been always been respectful going back there but it is like a legitimate fear when they hope so he when we propose that's Possibly there being a new driveway on the other side of the lot that's really great for me. It makes me feel less stressed but you know the moving of the well that also makes it easier for us. We've had to at times you know dig up the driveway when we did new well lines that's inconvenient when we're blocking off their driveway too so it really just works better for us. We burn wood in the winter it's a place now that we can go store what we've never had the lot line in the back behind the house Isn't very big for us to put any type of shed anything because the machine I mean it's from I say here from here to the wall it's how close that building is to our house so I mean it makes sense for us works well for us thank [7:02] Denise: you Denise Chris I mentioned the four guidelines that we as a board have to meet and it's looking at the plan initially it 's against the ordinance that ordinance for that zoning category requires a 25 foot setback between a structure and the property line there's presently as i read your letter 41 feet between [7:38] Chris Condon: The buildings I think I think you get the wording is right Jeff I think it's 25 feet from each structure and so we have the yellow quonset building let me call it and we have this machine [7:50] Denise: Yeah but that's not my question oh yeah the it's 41 feet the setback is 25 feet by the ordinance right required by the ordinance yes your letter and I don't think it's detailed on this plan but your letter says that there's actually 41 feet between the buildings correct. Okay, so half of that would be 20 feet 6 inches. Yeah. Right. Okay. And the reason I ask that is one statement in this ordinance stipulates the board may not may grant a setback variance of up to 20% of the required setback for a year-round owner-occupied single-family residence if the owner meets all of the following hardships, chips which are the hardships you referred to earlier, right? Yeah, so are we legally bound by that 20 percent maximum that we can allow in the variance? And this is where we need some input from the board whether and I've read further in the ordinance and I don't think we have much more authority other than that particular section of the ordinance. I think it would have to be determined, I think, by this board or by the legal opinion, I think you could justify that you can meet the, well, there are five, I think there's [9:40] Jeff Murchison: four on there. I guess part of my question is how were these long lines of originally approved to meet that set those setback requirements because it's obvious and obviously that they weren't when it was when it was divided out into Libra you ask him [10:07] Town staff/planner facilitating meeting: The original approval for that lot was made before these ordinances were in effect. So it was grandfathered. Any lot that was already created prior to the ordinances being enacted were grandfathered. [10:22] Jeff Murchison: So this ordinance became effective on when? [10:28] Town staff/planner facilitating meeting: But I did check the deed, the deed creating that lot was well prior, it wasn't even close [10:34] Jeff Murchison: us to do that and now the only reason I asked that for is for the board's sake going forward this isn't the only it's it's likely that this won't be the only divided out law that doesn't [10:56] Denise: meet our own lenses yes it is but the initial letter that we got it did say either Aaron stated it, or Chris's letter stated it, or that those particular property lines where they were shared, their brother sharing, splitting up property that their family probably owned or they bought together was grandfathered in. So I don't think that's an issue for us unless I'm mistaken, but I would be more concerned in making my decision of whether or not we're legally within our rights to allow more than a 20 percent setback and I that's where I would like [11:42] Jeff Murchison: Input from the other. Well, I tell you from the history part of this board, through past practices, that if all parties were an agreeance to this variance, then this board generally went with that. Now we've got a 20 setback. Now does the board have the right to overrule that setback 20 number? I, that I don't know. But yeah, I know in the past, if we had both parties here as a present neighbors and all, our grants that we're generally granted but [12:16] Denise: I know what you're saying about, well, my position would be this. Let's say that one parcel of that land was sold down the road and the new buyer challenged the deed that the town awarded a illegal variance for a setback, which could incur some cost to the town to litigate that one way or the other. And that might come back to the same circumstance. But as you read further, there's other statements in the ordinance that seems to suggest that we have more power than one that's you just up here. And there's other areas that seem to suggest, guess that we have very little power. So I guess the question is, do we want with the information that's presented to us here and the statements made by Denise and Chris, how much you want to hassle this over or do you want to make, do you want to make a decision right away? Or I think we should, what's the proper, would the town have an option to make a statement as well? Yes, I can, yes, you've had a good time, this is a great time and then I'm Gary, I'll recognize you [13:42] Town staff/planner facilitating meeting: So this is new to us, myself and Phil are the code enforcement and assistant code enforcement officers, and I don't have all the answers. I did do a lot of research on this and the denial was based on the statute you don't mean that we had to follow. So I think the denial is sound. I think the board has to consider the hardship definition and I think that's really where the crux of this matter lies. A hardship that is created by the seller or for the buyer is not, does not meet one of the four requirements. So choosing to sell this is creating this hardship. We would not be standing here had they not chosen to sell the property without meeting the standards, right or wrong. That's the definition of those in those four items. That hardship is really the exact problem that we're dealing here. The board chooses to ignore that and take his definition, I can't remember how you justify, that's the board's decision. But the town has ordinances in place and the expectation is that those will be Followed until the council writes new ordinances, yeah, and you know, I mean that, and I'm not arguing this is the difficulty with this. Chris has pointed out this is good for the town, it's coming off a non-taxable status into taxable status, not that it's a lot, but it, you know, it would be helpful. It's going to help one of our residents, which we love, you know what, why would we not want someone to have more property to raise their kids, and it's good for Northern Community Trails. That's the difficulty of this, and that was the difficulty of me issuing a denial letter, because this is a violation of our current ordinances. I think the [15:42] Denise: question in my head and what you're saying is who does it create the hardship for instance if you can't tear that building down that's a hardship for the non-profit corporation they have the expense yeah if something happens that well legally he might be required to be required to chip in for half or whatever it cost them that would be a hardship for denise i can see where traffic up through [16:14] Chris Condon: there, just so you know, pardon Caitlyn, I'm very sorry, just say no, I didn't want [16:20] Denise: to, okay, I'm very sorry about that, and I apologize, you're okay, I'm, I don't know where I come up with Denise, probably from not being able to read clearly, but anyway, Caitlyn, it is a hardship, it could be determined as a hardship for her, worrying about her kids getting, something happens, or his playing out in that road, so who does the hardship, who does this hardship apply to, it has, it doesn't create any hardship on the town of Fort Fairfield, so the definition of the hardship [16:55] Town staff/planner facilitating meeting: chair purchase it is that it's a violation of the ordinance, okay, that's the definition of the [17:02] Denise: hardship, not the hardship to an individual, the hardship, okay, yep, I dropped out of law school, [17:10] Town staff/planner facilitating meeting: I've learned this as I went, so still trying to figure it out, so from a legal standpoint, if we were [17:20] Jeff Murchison: if we were to put forth an amendment for our ordinance, what's that process look like, [17:29] Town staff/planner facilitating meeting: so an amendment to the ordinance would go for the planning board for review, and then it would go to the council, the planning board would take a vote to move it forward, and then the council would take a vote to move it forward, that next step. I haven't done a lot of research, on my experience has taught me that when you start changing ordinances to make one situation fit, sometimes you create cascading problems later. I don't know what those problems might be, but I think it would have to be a Carefully crafted ordinance. Once you've created some sort of loophole, then a lot of people are looking to do that. The idea, I did some research because I thought it was a rural area, 25 feet front, 25 feet back gives you 50 feet from your neighbor in a rural area, and that's kind of, people are in rural areas because they don't want to be right on top of their neighbor. But if you read the ordinance, is actually written to create some defensible territory in the case of fires. That's really what the original goal was. These buildings are already 40 feet from each other, and again, I can see the argument too. Clearly it's 10 feet right now, you're moving at ten feet and behind another building. I absolutely agree that this is a good sale, but as a representative of the town, I have to say this does not meet our ordinances, as great as [19:00] Jeff Murchison: the board's, because I don't personally, I don't see a problem with one that I think it's a beneficial, benefits both. They're not coming in and they're not coming in here arguing, fighting, but yeah, if our ordinance is such that it doesn't help the good, then that it needs to be amended. That just might [19:21] Town staff/planner facilitating meeting: I agree. We just got a ten thousand dollar grant to start amending our ordinances [19:26] Denise: and if you, I when I say I've read this stuff, when I first started speaking about it, you can see in the history of that ordinance other times that the town has amended that ordinance, and whether it be change the zoning or granted variance or whatever there, I believe I saw eight or ten times in there, and it might be less than that. So that is possible. Whether or not we want to, we can wait that long to for the ordinance to get changed. I personally think that before we leave this evening, we ought to make a decision on this particular appeal and let the town do what they need to do if they feel the order is going to be changed. Hey Gary, before [20:21] Town staff/planner facilitating meeting: Aaron, do you have anything else there? No, the only other thing I would say as a representative of the town, what Kendall said about past practice creates a pathway. Not that I'm advocating for this pathway, but it's, it's a continuation of a past practice until there are is a change in the ordinance. I don't, I didn't do any research on this in the past. I have no idea whether your memory is correct or not, but that's the way I would view it because of my experience with precedent and past practice [20:59] Denise: in other situations. Thank you. Thank you, Jerry. Before Aaron spoke, you had something to say, so [21:06] Jeff Murchison: Oh, yeah, I was just going to say that I agree with you that we should make a decision and not take this down the road for an ordinance to come out. I think we should make a decision tonight, and I think we should honor past practice. I think that's the best indicator of what we should do or a path forward. [21:29] Denise: Kendall, do you have anything to add to that? [21:32] Jeff Murchison: That no I'm kind of a dilemma but you know you got legal verbiage but like I've still got past practices working in my head and so that's that's really all I got for him yours [21:48] Jessica: You're good real quick yes sir I know you could say something about potentially [21:54] Denise: Do I need to stand up you guys care okay I'm kind of deaf you might want to stand up [21:59] Jessica: I should I know you don't be afraid to yell you know I can yell at you Jessica I you said something about potentially selling the property maybe like my end I'm not going no what I meant [22:14] Denise: Was down the road if Caitlin decided to sell or Chris the corporation decided to sell could some other buyer come back and say well the town of Port Fairfield approved that new illegal variance okay that was my only thought there and that's pretty far-fetched but it is possible so these three guys think we ought to make a decision tonight and so do I and I personally have seen enough information to make my decision on this one appeal you need more information no I'm good if you guys need more Information I think it's time that we vote whether or not we grant this one-time variance so that this sale can go forward so [23:15] Jeff Murchison: I'll make a motion okay do we need to have that who's anybody keep the minutes yes yeah [23:23] Town staff/planner facilitating meeting: Technically you're supposed to vote in a secretary but I'll be right okay [23:28] Jeff Murchison: Okay well I would make a motion that we approve this one-time variance to allow the sale to between the two parties present do I have a second I'll second that we have a [23:43] Denise: Motion and a second to approve this request for a variance as it applies to this proposed plan proposal all those any further discussion all those in favor will die so for the record so for the record we will grant this variance as a one-time variance as a motion said thank you guys thank you we'll see if you're talking the 10 foot we're talking by going by this plan okay but it doesn't mean the next person who's in the Nashville variance will get one but on the other hand I think the criteria Is met that see no harm to any of budding property owners. The story I said about potentially getting sued down the road, I think that's pretty far past. I'm comfortable with what we've done. If there's no further business to take care of, I move we adjourn. Or I take some entertain a motion to adjourn. I move we adjourn. So we'll second those in favor. So [25:05] Jeff Murchison: Going forward, if we want to put drafts