12/7 -

MINUTES - to be approved at the next meeting
FREEPORT BOARD OF APPEALS
Monday, December 5, 2005
7 p.m.—Council Chambers


Attending: Chair Sarah Dalton, Chester Goggin, Doug Reighley, Steven Bradbury, Amanda Meader, Shannon Ryan and Rick Warren



Chair Dalton called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and explained the Board’s process to members of the public. She noted that in November there were not enough members present to make up a quorum so a meeting could not be held.

ITEM I: Minutes of the October 3, 2005 Board of Appeals Meeting

MOVED AND SECONDED: To accept the Minutes of the October 3, 2005
Board of Appeals Meeting as printed. (Reighley & Goggin) VOTE: (5 Ayes)
(2 Abstentions—Meader & Bradbury).

Mr. Reighley explained that while the Board did not have enough members to hold a meeting, the Board members present did workshop with some of the applicants but no decisions were rendered.

January Meeting

Mr. Reeder noted that the January meeting would normally fall on New Year’s so he provided some alternate dates. There was consensus from the Board that December 29 would be their preference for the January meeting.


ITEM II: Tabled Public Hearings and Unfinished Business:

Louisa Picard, 43 Bow Street. Tax Map 13, Lot 72, Book 13227, Page 159 - Side Setback Reduction to expand an existing dwelling, zoned V-I.

Ms. Picard explained that she has changed her plans so that her expansion will require a setback reduction and she no longer requires a variance. She shared her new plan with her neighbors, Frank and Rita Armstrong and they submitted a letter stating they are in favor of the new plan.

Mr. Reighley noted that the Board work shopped with Ms. Picard last month with the members present and appreciate her moving out of a variance request.

Chair Dalton opened the public portion of the meeting. There were no public comments. Chair Dalton closed the public portion of the meeting.




MOVED AND SECONDED: To grant a 5’ side setback reduction in the direction towards Bean’s to Louisa Picard, 43 Bow Street, Tax Map 13,
Lot 72 for the modification of an existing dwelling based upon plans signed and dated this night. (Reighley & Bradbury ROLL CALL VOTE: (7 Ayes)


Ellen and Jonathan Handelman, 86 Maquoit Drive, Tax Map 5, Lot 60, Book 21624, Page 025—Two sides and a front setback reduction for a new dwelling, zoned MDR-1.

There was no one in attendance to address this application.

MOVED AND SECONDED: To dismiss this application. (Reighley & Bradbury) VOTE: (7 Ayes)



ITEM III: Public Hearings

Marc Long, 67 Lower Mast Landing Road, Tax Map 20, Lot 81A, Book 22020, Page 55,—
a modification to a previously approved 24-foot side setback reduction for a new house, zoned RR-II.

Mr. Long explained that he had his property surveyed and has a new property line. He is now asking for a 25’ setback reduction on his parents’ side. He will place the house exactly in the center of his lot.

Chair Dalton opened the public portion of the meeting. Ann Long, abutter, indicated she has no objection to her son’s plan. Chair Dalton closed the public portion of the meeting.

MOVED AND SECONDED: To grant Marc Long, 67 Lower Mast Landing Road, Tax Map 20, Lot 81A a 25’ side setback reduction on the southwest side of the property to allow for the construction of a new house on the plans signed and dated this date. (Warren & Reighley) ROLL CALL VOTE: (7 Ayes).

Frank and Pam Grondin, 6 Bay View Drive, Tax Map 24A, Lot 7 ETC., Book 12690, Page 256 —Setback reductions and a variance for the construction of a new house and expansion of an existing building, zoned RR-II.

Mr. Grondin introduced Carol Morrisette and David Matero. He explained that the garage exists but the roof line will be raised and the siding will be changed so that it will match their new home. The footprint of the garage will remain the same. The original house will be torn down. They are trying to design the new house so that it fits with the neighborhood. Mr. Matero explained where a right-of-way exists and also the building envelope that is available to them.

Chair Dalton opened the public portion of the meeting. Margaret Baker, abutter, indicated she has no objection to the Grondins’ plan. She is looking forward to having them as neighbors. A letter was received from Charles Swanson representing the Association in favor of the Grondins’ plan. Chair Dalton closed the public portion of the meeting.

Discussion followed regarding the garage. Mr. Goggin pointed out that he does not see where the garage meets the hardship criteria for a variance. Ms. Ryan concurred with Mr. Goggin. Mr. Reighley noted that he could not approve a variance for a garage.

Mr. Matero pointed out that the garage is in decent shape and has an 8’ basement. It would cost $50,000 to duplicate it in another area and the house will also be expensive. No one knew how many square feet existed in the original house. Discussion followed.

Board members concurred that this is a big house for a small lot but appreciated the applicants moving it out of the shoreline. They noted the right-of-way that limits the building envelope. They also explained that the applicant is able to change the shape of the roof line on the garage without increasing the volume. Mr. Grondin agreed to do this and withdrew his request for a variance.

Ms. Ryan asked if the applicant took overhangs into consideration. Mr. Grondin assured the Board that he would have surveyors on site at different times to ensure the house is placed in the correct location. He will fix it if it is found to be incorrect.

MOVED AND SECONDED: To grant Frank and Pam Grondin, 6 Bay View Drive, Tax Map 24A, Lot 7 ETC., a 25’ front setback reduction, a 25’ east limited setback reduction, a 12’ west setback reduction and a 37’ 6” rear setback reduction for the construction of a new house as shown on the plans signed and dated this date. (Bradbury & Reighley) ROLL CALL VOTE: (7 Ayes).


Leslie and Michael Reis, 17 Sandy Beach Road, Tax Map 4, Lot 14, Book 20867, Page 255, for a minor addition to their house, zoned V-II.

Mr. and Mrs. Reis explained that they are hoping to expand their living room by cantileaving a window. The frontage of their property is on a paper street. Their house was built in a variance situation. They are currently adding a garage and some additional space on the other side of their house.

They produced letters from four neighbors: Mr. and Mrs. Tim Whittaker of 3 Sandy Beach Road, Jim and Lucy Ahearn of 13 Sandy Beach Road, Mr. and Mrs. Andrew Dodge of 5 Sandy Beach Road and Mr. and Mrs. Robert Stevens of 4 Cliff Avenue in favor of this application.

Chair Dalton opened the public portion of the meeting. There were no comments or other correspondence. Chair Dalton closed the public portion of the meeting.

Discussion followed on the paper street. Mr. Reis indicated that they are not in a situation to purchase more property at this time but it is certainly something they would like to do in the future. They would have to purchase two parcels to get frontage on Cliff Avenue.

Mr. Goggin does not see that this fits into a variance situation. The applicants are using it as their home. Mr. Reighley noted he would not be able to grant a variance. He would like to see the paper street disappear. The house is certainly useable and it is being added onto as it is. Mr. Warren and Mr. Bradbury concurred.

The applicant requested that the application be tabled.

MOVED AND SECONDED: To table. (Goggin and Reighley) VOTE: (7 Ayes)


Chris Stilkey/Guilford Transportation, Fernald Road, Tax Map 18, Lot 106, Book 429, Page 104, Minimum Lot Size Variance to create a building lot from excess railroad land, zoned RR-I.

John Schwanda from Owen Haskell Surveyors, representing Mr. Stilkey, explained that the railroad purchased this land in 1849. When they purchased it, it created a triangular piece of approximately 2 acres but it was described as two separate parcels. There was no mention of Fernald Road at that time. Zoning came into effect in 1975 and he cannot find any information about Fernald Road. It is certainly a town road now. The lot that is left between the railroad and Fernald Road is 1.6 acres. The zone line is at the railroad. The zone requires 2 ½ acres and 200’ of road frontage. Mr. Stilkey has approached the railroad and they indicated they would like to sell this land. It has been tax exempt. It was recorded in one deed but described as two parcels. Historically there have been two uses – the railroad use and no use on this separate piece.

Chair Dalton opened the public portion of the meeting. Ty Farley, abutter, explained that his mother’s property is to the south of this parcel and they are opposed to the variance. Mr. Farley’s mother, Rita Farley, is the only abutter to this property. If the variance were approved, they would like to know what is planned for this property. His mother built her house in 1984 on 2 ½ acres and she is approximately 20’ from this property. They have had discussions with the railroad to see if they can purchase the property to protect their privacy. It would be added to their parcel. They did not believe the parcel in question was a buildable lot. Robert Toothaker, Angelina Toothaker and Rita Farley indicated they are opposed to the variance. Chair Dalton closed the public portion.

Mr. Bradbury stated that he does not believe this application meets the requirements for a variance because the railroad bought it with no expectation that it would be of any value.
Mr. Warren could see both sides. Right now there is no practical use other than for railroad purposes but it is apparent they can sell it with or without the variance. The lot is not that tiny.

Ms. Meader agrees that the railroad can sell the property and realize a return on it. Mr. Goggin noted that the lot is not 2 ½ acres and does not have 200’ of road frontage. Since members of the public have stated that they are interested in purchasing the property and incorporating it into their surrounding lot, it would eliminate the creation of a lot that does not fit the Town’s standards. He would not vote in favor of granting the variance. Ms. Ryan feels the property is serving a purpose right now and does not meet the hardship criteria. Mr. Reighley is not in favor of creating non-conforming situations and substandard lots. He does not see where the conditions of hardship are being met. More discussion followed on offering it up as a non-conforming lot of record. Mr. Reighley mentioned railroad land having a relationship with governmental agencies and perhaps an opinion should be requested from the Town Attorney.

Since Mr. Stilkey is not the owner, Mr. Schwanda asked if he could seek a building permit through the Board. Mr. Bradbury suggested getting a legal opinion.



MOVED AND SECONDED: To table to the next scheduled meeting. (Reighley & Ryan) VOTE: (7 Ayes).


David Soley and Jo Anne Labbe, 53 Spar Cove Road, Tax Map 28, Lot 3 ETC., Book 10380, Page 202, 205 – Shoreline Variance for the expansion of an existing dwelling, zoned RP-1.

Ms. Meader stepped down since she is an attorney at the same law firm where Mr. Soley is employed. Mr. Bradbury pointed out that his wife is an attorney at the same law firm but he would not step down unless other Board members felt it was necessary. Board members did not ask him to step down.

Mr. Soley introduced his fiancé, Jo Anne Labbe, Lex Holly, realtor and Mark Mueller, architect. They are purchasing the house at 53 Spar Cove Road from John and Sally Lincoln who are in Colorado. The reason they are asking for a variance is that the property has very serious health and safety risks attached to it. It is contaminated by mold and moisture. The bedroom in the basement has levels of radon that are more than three times higher than the guidelines recommended by the state and federal government. The problem is that the property is solid granite ledge with water running through the ground. They have five children that are planning to move into this house. There are ways to mitigate mold, moisture and radon but they don’t work perfectly. The house does not have a proper vapor barrier and has an “onion” smell throughout.

They hope to abandon the bedroom that is the basement and put that bedroom and a bathroom on top of the living room and take the contaminated basement and expand it out to give it better airflow. The abandoned bedroom could be changed into office use since adults in good health could use it from time to time.

They have two different sets of plans to help them work out these health risks. This house was in the RP-I zone but the Planning Board has taken a portion of the lot out of the RP-I zone pending approval from the Department of Environmental Protection. The DEP has 45 days to make a decision and at this time there are still 35 days remaining. After conversations with Mr. Reeder, Mr. Soley and Ms. Labbe decided to give the Board two sets of plans. One set marked “Proposal” assumes that this house is not in the RP-I zone. If the Board approves this plan, the approval would have to be pending DEP approval. So that Mr. Soley does not have to have his life dependent upon government decisions, he submitted the “RP-I Proposal” as well. He is requesting that the Board approve both plans, pending DEP approval. The “RP-I Proposal” is limited and does not completely solve the health and safety risks. It does not open up the contaminated space that exists below. He would need some scientific study to learn if it works.

Discussion followed on mitigating radon levels. Mr. Soley advised that there are no changes being made to the footprint itself. Their goal is to fix the house and ensure that the health risks are removed.

Chair Dalton opened the public portion of the meeting. There were no comments or correspondence provided. Chair Dalton closed the public portion of the meeting.


Mr. Reighley does not believe the conditions of hardship are being met since Mr. Soley is willing to purchase this home. It has value. If the current owners were here asking for a variance in order to do these changes, he would find it more favorable.

Mr. Goggin noted that this is a reasonable sized home and he does not see hardship for expanding the size on this property. He does not see where adding another room will clarify what the applicants are claiming as a hardship. He would prefer that the applicants install a system to see what the effect would be before coming to the Board. Unless something is tried, he does not see where hardship is met.

Mr. Warren pointed out that the applicants have to do something in this house to mitigate the health risks and he would support the hardship request. Mr. Bradbury noted that this is a pretty good package and there is justification for the renovations being suggested. This is a good plan to get to where they want to be which essentially is have a home that is livable.

Chair Dalton reviewed the hardship criteria and agrees that there is a reason to do some mitigation but there are people living in the house currently. It would be easier for her to grant a variance if the current occupants were here requesting it. She would most likely vote against granting a variance.

Ms. Ryan noted that clearly something has to be done with this house to make it safe and she could vote for hardship.

Chair Dalton noted that the Board appears to be tied so a motion would fail. Mr. Reighley explained that what would be of interest to the Board would be some expert mold and radon information and why it cannot be handled in any other way. It would be helpful if the information could be provided in advance so the Board will have time to read it.

Mr. Reighley would not want to see any increase in the size of the house in the direction of the shoreline. This is a nice piece of property closer to the water than anything can be built today. The Board generally likes to see additions moved away rather than getting closer to the water.

Mr. Soley did not feel the Board was focusing on the issue of moving children into this home. He requested a tabling.

MOVED AND SECONDED: To table. (Bradbury & Reighley) VOTE: (6 Ayes) (1 Abstention—Meader).

ITEM IV: New Business

Mr. Reeder asked if the Board would like to meet with the Council. Board members concurred that they had no agenda to discuss with the Council. Mr. Reeder will send a note stating this.







ITEM V: Adjournment


MOVED AND SECONDED: To adjourn at 9:25 p.m. (Reighley & Ryan) VOTE: (7 Ayes)

Respectfully Submitted,


Sharon Coffin
Recorder