TranscriptDecember 22, 2020 ~ Appeals Board Meeting

Good evening everyone. It is um the 22nd of December and this is a public hearing of the town of Dur Durham's Board of Appeals. I'm Barbara Schneider. I I serve as chair of the board. The members of the board and the alternates who are here um go ahead and maybe and and introduce yourselves. We'll start. Um um

let's just go alphabetically. So that would put you up first. Dean. Yeah. Hi Dean Clark. Woodland Road. Um next would be Paul. Yep. Paul first Chesley Hill Road. Terry Kirk. No Brook Road. Um, Heather Heather Roy Hollowwell Road

and Milt. on the Stack Pole Road. All right. Um and um I see one other person who is um identified as Dan. Would you mind introducing yourself? Okay. Can you hear me? Yep. Now we can. Oh, this is this is Dan uh from uh Auburn Panel Road.

Okay. And um Dan, it just I'm I'm wondering if Dan, are you um uh a party to this? Are you part are you in any way representing Mr. Dennis or are you an interested party andor neighbor? Uh interested party. Okay. I don't see Mr. Dennis

here. Um might he be on the phone? she's asking for him now. Mr. Dennison, are you on this Zoom hearing for your matter? I'm gonna I It doesn't sound as if he is, but we have another bit of business that we can attend to.

Moment. Ruth Dean, are you going to ask if he might be on the phone? We would see him, I believe, if he was dialed in simply by phone. there we go. We have a few more people appearing. Hi, I'm here. Let me get Let's see what I got to do here. Start video.

Okay, there we go. Yep. We were we were actually just beginning to convene. Um Gary perhap you are another member for those who are in the um listening to us who are not familiar with the board. Gary also is a member of the board of appeals. So Gary, why don't you introduce yourself?

I'm Gary Wood. I lived on Boyh Hill Road for about 21 or two years. I live in Portland now. Okay. And I've been on the board for about 35 years or longer. Never mind. And then I do see someone who's joined us by telephone with a number 5770726.

Is this Mr. Dennison perhaps? Yes, it is. Okay, great. Good evening. Perfect. Good evening. I don't know. All right. And then we also have Bob Forest. Um and then um a a a neighbor. Before we get to the matter of Mr. Dennis's appeal, we do have um one set of minutes from our previous meeting um that were sent out to us by Kathy Dion about a week and a half ago. Um,

if you have a moment, I I do note that Gary had submitted a correction. I have to acknowledge I hadn't read them until right before the meeting yesterday. I believe there's a second correction. Um in the first um the second vote, we I I recall that we voted to deem the bins as structures, which is a little which is exactly opposite of what the minutes reflect.

Well, we did vote that the bins were structures. I I must have missed that. Right. So, I I would like to um if if all of you saw Gary's change to the minutes, which was to add subject to selectman's approval in the paragraph he alerted us to. And if we remove the word not from the vote on the structures,

those minutes would reflect that previous meeting unless anyone has any other issues. Yeah, that that makes sense. That makes sense, Barbara. So, okay. Do you want us to just move that want us to move that correction and pass it?

Yes, that would be ideal. I move that the cor that that the minutes be corrected as Barbara just stated to remove the word not in relation to the decision on structures. Okay. And also to make the amendment that Gary had suggested by email.

I'll second it. Thank you, Terry. All in favor? I Who's Are we all voting? Who's on? I guess those who are participating in the decision, right? Yeah. Okay. And And I can vote on the first part and Paul can vote on the second part in effect. Barbara, I think you need to do for the record, I think you need to do a roll call to get as opposed to just looking for people to raise their hand.

Okay. What? That's right. So, um Paul, how would you vote for the minutes? Because you were um in effect a member for portion of the meeting. Vote to approve. Dean, I'm sorry. I'm not missing the point. On the minutes from our previous meeting.

Oh, yes. Great. Yes. So, roll call vote and you approve. Okay. Milt. I vote to approve and Gary. I vote vote to approve. And I would just note Barbara, we should either make my email part of the records add subject to the approval of the selectman after we uh gave approval to the CEO to issue the permit for the junkyard.

Okay. Yes, we we will include that. And then Terry, I approve. Okay. The there is a second matter before we get to the appeal that I just want to alert the board of appeals to. Um, as you all may know, the town had voted at its last election um to move to a town

man town um manager selectman form of government and the town now is in the process of um doing a needs assessment for that position. Um I would like to spend just a minute um asking you all um in effect one of the things I think is very important and I thought perhaps I would draft a letter to this effect to the selectmen. I I believe and I think others may may agree or not agree but that it is very important that any town manager hired by this town is extremely well-versed in current land use issues

and ordinance drafting and design. As you all know, we are facing some significant growth in this town as reflected in the amount of activity that we have seen as reflected in the amount of activity that the planning board has seen. And I think as a board if we were to express a sentiment that it is our belief that high on the list of criteria for any town manager would be familiarity and experience in shephering a town that is facing growth pressures through a process of addressing that.

And you know, we can talk about that briefly, but I just think there's a way to write that letter from us and I'm happy to draft something and to send it to all of you for review. Gary, yeah. Um, Barbara, the only the only extent that I would go to in terms of supporting that would be to say that to the uh extent possible rather than saying it should be a major criteria. Um my experience with with town and city managers is that managing the business

is their first and foremost uh obligation and that within that context they often have to reach out if they're good to experts because it is such a a complicated matter now that um and I'd like to hear what Paul has to say about it because you know he he he's been a manager But I I I I would in my mind in

all honesty, I would want a manager if I were to lay out criteria who's extremely knowledgeable in municipal and school finance. Um and uh in terms of land use, I I would really expect them to have to and be willing to use, you know, outside counsel and experts to help them with the issues that you've articulated because the manager um

is really um not by by the nature of the physician supposed to be major player in terms of policy decisions like what uh you know what uh what are the town ordinances going to say or not say. Um I think that crosses a line that I was always uncomfortable with when managers saw uh fit to say well here's an ordinance that we should really pass. Um and it's okay to do that as long as you say why. to take leadership role on something as broad-based and complicated as land use in the town of Dor.

I I don't know. I'm just a little uncomfortable with it. That's just my initial read, Paul, because you were nodding. I'm getting Yeah. Well, you know, um I think I I agree with much of what both of you are saying. Um I think that

um there's you know it's it's a it's a tough job because a lot is demanded of the individual and I think it will be especially tough for this new manager because not only are they doing the management of staff and the management of the financial side and budget and all those other things, but I'm wondering if there's also maybe a significant a significant uh kind of admin administration role related to the everyday everyday administration because I don't see someone in that administrative assistant role. So I suspect whoever they hire,

they're going to have their hands full. Of course, this is also it's going to be new for Durham. So, um there's going to be quite a bit of negotiation and I think finding our way between the new manager and the uh the board. Um but uh

it's certainly good to have, you know, some knowledge of land use. And of course, you know, I went from being a planner to being a town manager, which was uh I guess isn't that out of the ordinary, but certainly assisted me on those issues. Now, in New Gloucester, we had a a full-time town planner, so we had someone to take that role. In Durham, you don't really have that. So certainly having a good understanding for example of the the duties of the individual departments for example fire and rescue, public works, code enforcement um and how that relates to land use planning you know I would say yes but finding a good manager is always dependent on the pool of candidates that you get. And so I think that that caveat that Gary offered is an important one. um which is to the extent possible because they may find themselves faced with tradeoffs. Um you you know uh it

always depends on who else is out looking for a manager and who's willing to step up who's and who's available. So um but I think the but I I certainly appreciate the sentiment and maybe there's something there that we could you know that Barbara that you could write in that vein that would just say to the ex extent possible and you know recognizing the other that the you know primary role of this individual is the management of the different departments and within that you know false code enforcement and um uh you know zoning board of appeals and all those other things that are certainly important especially at this time given the the development pressures that we're under especially in this you know real estate market that we're in right now

right so so why don't I try a just a brief note or letter that we all can look at that gets something to them and and we can decide you know it we send it as a board or we don't but I just wanted to put that out there Um just I I think I think talking with Bob, you know, having someone that really can assist in

his role in interpreting it's sometimes challenging with, you know, part-time boards. Um you know, having that other person in the office in town that can be a go-to for for Bob as a resource as well. I mean, you know, as

you know, that that's part of it because um from my perspective and we do now have a part-time planner, Paul. I don't know if you know that. Oh, yeah. Yeah, I know that. But it's not a person who's in the office every day certainly. And um I don't know exactly how that person's duties are divided currently but you know I know ordinance can just be it could be so complex and every question you get is different

right and you know as you guys know there's a lot of interpretation involved and it's often it's a wonderful thing it is a wonderful thing to have someone to be able to say um look you know I just had this person and they asked this question and this is what I'm thinking, you know, this is the answer that I I I came up with. Does that make sense to you, too?

Right. And that's really what I'm I'm getting at is someone that, you know, that provides that additional level of staff support in that area with with some kind of, you know, anyway, let let me try to put pen to paper. I don't want to belabor this too much because we do have a matter before us and people waiting for us, but I think it's I think it's worthwhile. um because we know what we have seen frank frankly I think so

okay um and um you guys are free to kind of say nope you know let's not do this or let's do it all right so let's move on to the item on our agenda is um Mr. Dennis's um request for variance for his property located at 184 Auburn Panel Road. And as we typically do, we tend to open our matters by having um the codes enforcement officer give us a brief overview of of the circumstances. Um and then we

would um invite um Mr. Dennis um you know to explain the basis for the request or if there are and and to answer after that to answer questions from the board. Does everyone agree with that process? All right. So Bob, would you give us a brief overview, please?

Sure. Um Alvin asked me probably last year I believe about um putting a mobile home out there. And at that time the ordinance read that you had you could have two dwellings per lot before the December 19th ordinance was was done.

doing is allowing this if they had the frontage and the lot acreage for the second lot because if they ever did have to split it, they would both be conforming lots. So, that was my approach to the whole thing. Um, and now since the December 19th ordinance last year, the the language was changed to only allow one dwelling per lot. So, that's kind of where we are right now. And I spoke with Alvin again this year and I explained that you'd have to break a piece off to be able to do that. And that's what our ordinance reads.

Do we want to hear Barbara from the applicant before we before we begin to ask questions? Exactly. Terry, if that's all right. Well, let's let's hold our questions until we have Mr. Dennis basically explain his the situation to us from his

perspective. Okay. Um hi everybody. Uh my uh uh I assume that uh everybody's read my uh my appeal that I wrote um and uh submitted to the board. Is that correct? Is that a reasonable assumption? Yes. Yes. Okay. So, it's pretty self-explanatory

uh there, but uh I I do remember uh asking uh last year about uh I wasn't specifically referring to the mobile home at that point. It was just he was explaining the new laws that were coming into effect about I was wondering about dividing my property off and into lots at that

point. But it really was just uh uh not relevant to to this matter here. But so like I was saying, I had asked him previously about uh getting a permit to move a mobile home onto my site that had previously been a mobile home site. And uh I explained in my letter there uh everything about that and what my

point was and that I was referring to uh section 16.5 nonconforming structures paragraph C uh which concern reconstruction or replacement of any non-conforming building or or use as it says it there which is hereafter and I believe that refers to hereafter the uh activation of the new ordinance

you would have a three-year period to uh to restore that uh non-conforming building. That was my point that I was making as far as the uh ordinance was concerned. extenduating circumstances about uh the uh a variance uh issue because of my

concern about um uh moving my my mom and my sister uh back onto that site which is as you read is a you know formal uh a site a site that was used and established uh early on. So that's basically uh what I'm saying I guess. So if you have any questions,

now? Um, I also had one, but you you had one that you wanted to ask of Bob. It sounded like Yes. I wanted to know uh the page number in the section that Bob was referring to in the ordinance. Well, one lot. Which which section? The one lot per you per one dwelling per lot.

Yes. Page nine. A2. earlier. 4.1 A2. it's on page nine. or the new ordinances, Barbara? I'm I'm reading from the new ordinance amended 129209. rural residential and agricultural district. Only one single family detached dwelling or two family dwelling shall be permitted on a lot. No dwelling shall be erected except on a lot that fronts on a street as defined. And the minimum street frontage measured along the lot line at the street shall be at least equal to the minimum lot width.

4.1 A2. Okay, you want to ask one first? No, you're I just want to make sure. Terry, are you set, Terry? Do you have any other questions? No, I got it. I got it. Okay. Um, sure. Gary, I'm so far at a Yeah. Uh, I I'm so far I'm at a disadvantage because I'm not able to pull up. Oh, there we go. I finally got the ordinance. Um Um, when um Bob, these

are for Bob. When did uh Mr. Dennis formally request permission this year from you uh to move that mobile home on. And how how was that done? Was it in a letter or you come into the office or um he came into the office and the date of my letter is October 29th of this year.

date. Now, um am am I mistaken that the new ordinance didn't go into effect until um November 3rd or something of this year? Am I in the right year? Well, there are parts of the there were parts that were revised and the revisions are dated on the page of the ordinance. So if it says November 3rd, 2020, then that was the new adoption. If it says 121919,

that's the the ordinance that the town also voted on last year. So I I can simplify this. At the election, we did some changes to districts and added districts. the previous amendment to the ordinance is is what addressed the single lot the

single dwelling on a lot issue. So okay that was in December of two that was in December of 2019 or there about question. I just wanted to make sure we were working with the ordinance that is applicable. Um the other question I have and I guess it would go to uh Mr. uh Dennison. Um in his letter, the the code officer suggested that an avenue for you to obtain the uh approval that you need

is for you to create a a lot that conforms with the town's lot requirements uh on which would be the pad, the mobile home pad that you already have already set with utilities. What what is it about that um suggestion if anything that that causes problems for you?

For me? Yes. Is that uh Yeah. Well, uh um he's uh uh what what he wants me to to do is he is to create another lot uh which would require I believe he said uh another road to that lot and that you know it was already uh previously established

site there. And so I I didn't believe that I should have to and because of the uh paragraph C on the restructure or replacement paragraph uh that it allows me to to do that within a three-year period if if uh if I provide the uh you know qualifications that it requires. Um, and that does if you read that paragraph.

well, let me just, if I may, Barbara, then ask Bob, um, does the ordinance require uh, Mr. Dennis and to have a separate access road to this new lot? I thought I read somewhere in the current ordinance that you can actually have two lots off of one driveway essentially. Is that correct?

One has to be a back lot. The new one would have to be a back lot because he doesn't have 600 ft of road front. Okay. I didn't You mean there's not 600 feet on? 600 ft of road frontage. And that's the issue. I said you that you would need to create a back lot and any backlot requires 300 ft of road frontage on a 50 foot wide rightway.

Dennison. Um, is is how wide is the driveway? well, uh, I'm it could be well, I'm not sure 20 feet or something like that. I mean, I'm not sure or more depends. And so between the garage because the I mean I'm assuming the issue with making that driveway 50 feet has to do with the spacing of the garage to your home. I mean a road I mean it

how much is it a 56 I'm I'm having trouble too understanding the parcel from the drawing. Is the parcel 56 acres? Yes. Okay. And do you don't know how much frontage you have on the Auburn Panel Road then, right? Well, I I do know that. Yes. I don't

know it off the top of my head here. I'm not I'd have to look at my u 39. How much do you show off? 390. So he has the room to put a 50- foot wide rightway in and keep his lot conforming. Both lots conforming. Well, one would have to be a backlot.

Right. Right. So, but it might re require relocating an existing access to the back lot. of a back lot right ofway. You need to have a 300T frontage, 200 ft deep and five acres. Right. So here's here I mean from my perspective I here's my my concern, Mr. Dennison, about 16.5

C. it it really goes to a circumstance where the structure is for some reason accidentally destroyed and that's not what we had here. We we had to we had a removal of the structure and there is a provision in our ordinance that says once you make a nonconforming use conforming by taking away the non-conformance we can't make it non-conforming again. So I mean I

yeah I'll let you talk. Well, so it says you know uh which is hereafter damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, lightning, wind, structural failure or other accidental cause may be restored or reconstructed. So, and I pointed out that the floors in the mobile home had structural issues and therefore uh was one of the reasons that my mother wanted to leave it because she couldn't afford to the upkeep of it and which was uh so and I'm

feeling that you know that it was when it says I have a three-year period to replace that uh after the new ordinance that I should be able to do that. Well, the problem with that is the the mobile home was removed in 2007.

Yeah, but that shouldn't matter because uh there wasn't an ordinance against it being there in 2007. So, the law didn't come into effect until 200 December of 2019. So that's from that period on is when you start counting the three-year period. It doesn't matter when when my when my uh mobile home was removed because it wasn't an issue at that point. It only become an issue after

the implantation of the ordinance. And then you have a three-year period to Dennis, I I agree with Barbara, and you know, I I can understand your the way you're looking at it, but that ordinance that you're citing is designed and intended only to allow someone to

replace a nonconforming structure that was totally destroyed. If you had left your mobile home there and within, you know, and you wanted to upgrade it um to the point where it was more livable, then that might have been allowed back in 2007 because you had a non-conforming structure and if you had showed it to Bob or whoever the CEO was and he agreed, yeah, you got major structural issues, but he would have let you fix those Then

but let me finish. But but once you remove the structure, your your your claim to structural infirmity no longer applies. It's gone. There's nothing there's nothing there for you to to repair. I disagree with you because

so I agree with Bar at the point uh when the building was it was a conforming building. It was a conforming structure at before the ordinance came in. Now it becomes a nonconforming building because of the new ordinance and whether the

Yeah. But our Yeah. Our ordinance, Mr. Dennison, prohibits you from creating a nonconforming structure from the you know on your prohibits. I have a site. I have a site. I have a constructed site there excavated with if you read my letter with with water pipe from my from the house. I have septic system. I have power poles there and

hurricane. Uh yeah. Yeah. I think we all we all understand that. I think Mr. Dennis about what we're trying to do is help you figure out a way to do what you want to do within the requirements and language of the ordinance because what you're asking us to do quite frankly at least you know in my opinion and as I read the ordinance we can't allow you to do um but if we can explore a little bit

more this creation of another lot there with the required access Then I think I don't want another to help with I don't want another we understand that you know this is one piece of property with guy who had established a site. It was an established site there.

Yeah. But whether it had which had a mobile home on it at one point in time and just because it was removed before your new ordinance came into effect shouldn't affect that. I should have a three-year period to restore it.

I'm I think we're I'm not sure. There may be others on the board who are reading the ordinance in conformance with the way you're interpreting it. But but the other problem that I have is that is in 16.4 4C I mean if you had kept um we we we just don't allow a non a

nonconformance which becomes conforming and I I guess I understand the it may be that it was a conforming use before but the whole point of nonconformance is when ordinance change when or if when ordinance change we recognize It makes invalid things that previously were valid. So if there was still a mobile home there, right? You had a mobile home. It was confirming because our old ordinance said two dwellings could exist on a lot. You pass an ordinance. You had two dwellings on the lot. That would be a nonconformance. But once you've removed the dwelling, it it's a conforming lot back then and

it can only be a conforming lot going forward. You removed anything that made it nonconforming. I I don't see how we can save this for you this way. It just So, okay. So, uh let me ask you a but now if I had uh had a uh a foundation in the ground built and

had put a floor on it and had uh all the essential work done like I did on my uh mobile home site. the uh septics and water and power and everything and then I wasn't able to finish it u and then uh and then you came up with

this now I wouldn't be able to finish the building you have a year in that case as I read the ordinance 16.4 4C if there was a non-conforming use, right? You had a foundation or small structure or something there, right? We pass an ordinance, but it wasn't being used. You've got a year to get it going again. And you guys

16 new ordinance. Is that what you're saying? Or before the new ordinance? No, you would have a year after with the new ordinance. It would give you a year. That's so Yeah. So, I don't understand. I think the old ordinance had a very similar requirement.

Yeah. Yeah, it did. It did. Yeah. Barbara, would it be okay if a comment? I know one of the official board members. I'm hearing some feedback. I'm not sure. Is there anyone who's got anything else going on? Um, that sounds a little bit better, but All right,

Barbara. Paul, go ahead, please. Okay, great. Thank you. So, um, you know, reading through the application, I think that Mr. Dennison certainly had a lot of did a great job of articulating his application. I thought, you know, uh, expressing his concerns and laying it out for us. I actually thought it was a pretty well-ritten application that he did a good job with it. Um but kind of the bottom line for me is that when you read 16.5C uh in accordance with that section and the intent of that section is that the

has to have been damaged or destroyed after the enactment date of the ordinance. That's the intent of that language is to cover a circumstance where you have a non-conforming building. Okay. and then it's damaged or destroyed after the enactment of the ordinance. So I don't think it really applies to this situation. Um that's my two cents. I mean I on the other hand I do have some concerns which are probably neither here nor there with regard to you know this change in um

no but we but unfortunately we we're kind of we're not playing it. We are committed to having to stick by the ordinance by law. That's our our our charge and um it's just trying to be fair to everyone in that respect. Okay. Can I comment on that?

Your uh so you say that non-conforming uh the building had to be there. So, if somebody had a house or the non-conforming building, say I had a mobile home there uh a week before and it burnt down or fell down. Well, now I wouldn't be able to replace it

because it was destroyed before there. What's that? I can't somebody going in in the background. I don't know if it's a radio or a TV or uh I don't know if other people can hear that, but it's making it really hard for me to hear.

It is unless it's internet wacko. I don't know. I think people that aren't speaking should mute their mics. Dean Dean, could you mute your mic? No, there's no sound coming from here. Yeah, I think I've got mine on. I've got mine on. Maybe I think what we discovered last time was background talking we turn it off right in that uh

um yeah um first Mr. Dennis, and I'm quite sure, although I don't have the past ordinances in front of me, that the section that you're relying on has been almost the same for many years in terms of trying to repair or replace a non-conforming structure. Is this is not something that uh came into the ordinance just this year or I think even last year because I know we've dealt with that oh many many years ago. We dealt with two or three issues very similar in that one-year period only applies when the structure starts out nonconforming and something happens to it that you need to fix, whatever it is. Um, and

that's not the case here. Um, because you moved it off. So I I I think you're you're going to be better off if we can talk a bit with you and with Bob about are is there another alternative that might be available to you here? Now I I heard what you said about creating the other lot. But if I

you choose, you can rejoin that lot with your current lot. So, let's say you create a um to yourself and your sister or yourself and a corporation that you own and control or or somebody that will do what you want them to and you lease it. Um

yeah. To point to say, "Okay, I'm going to, you know, you transfer it right back to yourself." Um that's why I was trying to explore with you a little bit about you know the thought of another lot and don't know if Bob should be able to answer this for us. Um, if someone creates a lot in Durham, do they have to hire a surveyor or can they, you know,

uh, just shoot the meats and bounds and get a description up, um, for themselves because that would obviously save some money if if you didn't have to use, you know, use a professional surveyor to to create the lots um, boundaries.

I have always I've always requested a survey for a lot know I I haven't been able to you know get into the ordinances from here as much as I would like and I couldn't see if anywhere in the ordinance it says no lot can be created in the town uh without uh without be without a formal survey by a certified uh surveyor.

Okay. And and I don't know what surveys cost anymore either. They used to cost a couple thousand bucks. I don't know if that's um they're quite expensive. The back lot for creating one back lot, which is really all that would be needed here. Um, you know, you don't need to have a street plan or a professional engineer plan. Um, you just need to be able to put dimensions and have a a driveway that meets certain requirements. Um,

it's it's it's you know, I don't know how that would compare to a mobile home purchase. Yeah. And before how is somebody going to produce a deed without a survey used to do it all the time if it's in effect if it's related parties that aren't going to boundaries?

it happens all the time. That's why I I think your concern, Bob, would be uh Yeah. I mean, Bob, your concern is well, merited. I mean, the lot's not going to be able to be sold, I don't think, anyone else. I mean, without that survey, but I'm just trying to find a way here, if there is one to help Mr. Dennis in what seems like a pretty pressing and difficult family situation to sort of partial, you know, temporarily at least get him some of the relief he needs and then the longer term, you know, can be addressed uh as

part of it. I mean, I've even looked at, you know, could we, you know, I'm I would I am absolutely convinced, Mr. Dennis that you know the needs of your mother and the state's definition of a person with a disability would fit here and there are such things as disability variances. So you know

attaching you know we can grant disability variances to create access to dwellings but we can't create a disability variance to create a separate dwelling. So, you know, you'll want to attach the mobile home to your house.

Well, it is in a way. I have my water runs from water from my house. I was trying to think, is there a way, but it really would be twisting and contorting the ordinance. I mean, and I recognize we're not talking about and the the beauty in some respects of a disability variance is that we're in entitled to limit it for a period of time, right? And so, you know, is do do

you is there a way, you know, I don't know if your house is accessible, but you know, if the access to your house is through an accessible mobile home and it's all connected, but that's also got construction costs. So, you know, it's not in if that's not a costless thing connecting a mobile home to your residence and saying a disability variance could be granted for the purpose for the durations of of the disabled individual's lifetime. But that would require connecting everything together which

has expenses. Yeah. So, uh I think that you know that's a little I think too much and you know and my mom she is 95 years old and you know so time but it's also in consideration of my sister who uh would actually be purchasing the

mobile home and uh to uh and you know so she could take care of my mother for her duration there. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yeah. What? No, I'm sorry I cut you off, Mr. Dennis. I apologize. Well, I I was just going to say and uh there's no in intention of

of uh you know renting anything or selling anything like that. It's only for you know the purpose of being able to help my mom and my sister as well because she doesn't have a uh a place as well or won't have in next spring. Uh

uh so that was kind of what why we were doing this and uh but she would have the option of of uh if she didn't you know after my mother had passed that if she didn't want to stay there uh then she could move her mobile home to wherever she wanted to or sell the mobile home itself you know and So that's kind of what the uh our intentions were. But

Heather, you've got a question it looks like. So why don't you unmute and ask that? Thanks. Um this might be for Bob. Does he have room if he to do a back lot where it needs to be 300 ft of road frontage just Can you see this, Bob?

Yeah. Okay. So see shaded part. See the shaded part that I did? Yeah. Could that count? Could that be like considered the road frontage for him to be able to get the 300 feet so he could do a back lot there or does it have to go around his house and his his house can't be included?

It would have to you can't include the house because it's a separate lot. So, what he would have to do is put the rightway on the right hand side of his property and the ordinance says it has to be 200 f feet deep but 300 ft long. Now, you

could put a hammerhead in there so that it wouldn't need to be 300 feet. It could only be 150 with a 50 by 50 by 50 hammerhead. That would give him the 300 ft. But he still has to meet the 200 feet depth for So my other question is does it have to be in existence or does it

does that do you know what I'm saying? Can it just be a right of way that exists but doesn't have to be used? Could he It has to be according to the ordinance it has to be a 20 foot wide gravel road in a 50ft rideway. And that's the ordinance. I mean,

I feel like that's where this conversation needs to be around this. I feel like I feel like this is the only way that we're going to be able to do make this happen. And I feel like this is where the conversation needs to be,

right? But that's Heather, that's not us. That's we we basically vote to grant the variance or not v grant the variance and then it becomes between Mr. Dennis and Mr. Mr. Dennison to apply for a backlot and do the work. We don't weigh in on its creation or not.

Okay. We don't I mean, Mr. Dennison, is this a conversation that you're willing to have with Bob further in trying to figure out ways to make this happen through a backlot? The only other option, I don't mean to interrupt you, Alvin, but the only other option is put an addition on the house,

right? You know, which can only be 50% of the house, but I think that the planning board would approve a larger addition. We we get to do a disability variance in that respect. I think an addition on the house with access. I I think we're we kind of can that can work in a much different way, but it it means construction.

Yeah. Yeah. Right. So, that might be an option for uh for us. Uh I'd have to get everybody to consider it, of course. And uh but at this point, we're not going to be able to do anything. So, but I'm not really not interested in uh making another lot because in the end the long run uh I I don't want to have to sell two lots or

can I ask a question? Why would there be any limitation on the size of an addition? There's no frontage issues, is there? He could make an He doesn't have neighbors, but I mean I mean it seems to me the lot is big enough he could add an addition. There's no non-conformance to the existing structure is my point.

why would there be a limit on what he could add on to the house? Yeah, I Oh, he may be gone, but I don't know. I I asked that because I don't think it's a non-conforming structure at all. Is it? No. No, not the house. House is

right. You You meet setbacks from the road, you meet setbacks from the lot line. Um, so I Yeah, I I I don't even think there's an issue with getting a permit for an expansion on the dwelling. it just, you know, the in-law apartment concept or something like that. Um I I mean I think what what we're saying, Mr. Dennis, is the sense of the board, at least those of us who have spoken, and we haven't heard from Milt and we haven't heard from Terry. Um I should say that both Paul and Heather are alternates because we have a quorum. We always allow our alternates who are gracious in giving up their time for meetings to ask questions,

weigh in, but but really the voting members of the board are Mr. Clark, Mr. Wood, Mr. Simon, Mr. Kirk and I. Um, but but I h we haven't heard from Mr. Simon or Mr. Kirk about, you know, about the variance application, but I think you're getting the sense that

we just don't see how we can do it. But but but M but Milton Terry if you wanted to weigh in. Yes. Uh with the existing ordinances the way they are and without creating a backlot I really can't see how this can go. Okay. and and and Milt

um I don't have anything to add. Um I I I'm not um I'm not knowledge at the moment as far as you know the variance options. Um I do agree with you know what's been said previously the fact that the the the trailer you know had been removed back in 2007. Um I I don't think that um the section C

um um is is addressing it the way Mr. Dennison is reading it. I think the fact that he removed that structure, he removed that that um mobile home back in 2007. Um I don't think he gets because there's nothing there. I don't believe he gets now, you know, an extra year or an extra three years based on the start of a new ordinance.

I don't have anything else to add. And and Bob, when you I think you went away for a minute there, but I was just wondering why why there needs to be a limitation on any on any um addition. I mean, this is really just conversation, but because it doesn't appear to be a non-conforming structure, he could he's he could make additions that are and you know, whatever.

Yeah, he can. And uh the reason that I gave him that section of the ordinance is that's the only place it talks about replacing a structure. Okay. No, f that's fine. But I mean in if he wanted to make an in-law apartment addition or put on an extra bedroom or whatever, that's just your basic building permit on a conforming structure on a conforming lot.

Correct. Okay. Okay. So, so I wonder whether I mean we've given you Mr. Dennis and I think you get a sense from the board that we don't agree with your interpretation on on the non-conforming use provision and the three-year period and hereafter. But we have, you know, talked about some options that you might have to do what you need to do, which is which is important.

Um, so I I wonder um, you know, both Paul and Heather, I'm I'm grateful that you were here and that you you know, gave input and talked about um, your interpretation and gave some ideas. We don't need to designate either of you as voting members for the purpose. Does someone want to entertain a motion on on this um ver to to to provide a motion? And um we we can do a roll call vote. Um

because it fails to meet any of the requirements in the ordinance to uh obtain a variance. and that we um I think that's what I'll I'll just leave the motion there. I'll second it. Okay. And we'll do a roll call. Um we'll start with Mr. Clark.

I mean, is there any more discussion? I guess I should say. Is there any more discussion on the motion? Okay. Oh, muted. Mute. Muted. of assistance maybe to unmute, but um maybe Dean, do you know how to use the chat? You could probably say yes in the chat. Oh, can you unmute?

Could Could Dean raise his hand if he's in agreement? Right. Yeah, he can raise his hand. You agree with the motion? Yes. Yes. Okay. Gina. Okay. Um uh Terry. Yeah. Um, Milt, Uh, Gary, now we're unmuted. Yes. Thank you. And I also agree. Um, all right. And you know what our usual practice is, um, Mr. Dennis is that that the minutes will reflect just the bare bones, but I do write I will write as as I usually do a a brief opinion explaining um you you obvious you do have the right um to appeal this um you've got a um and the ordinance will say um but I do think some of these other things we've talked about are much um would be a much more cost-effective route for to um to pursue. I think you

know we want we recognize the need for for you to provide for your mother. We do and we want to have that done in a way that comports with with our ordinances. And I think there are ways to do that. um and and and it may not be the way you want it to, but it would would will potentially allow as cost-effectively um a solution.

Okay. Well, thanks much. Well, we appreciate it and and again, thank you for bringing this to us. Um um for your time. You too. Byebye. Bye. Yeah. Good luck, Mr. Dennison. Thank you very much. Um, move that we adjourn. Okay. Um, second. Is there a second to that motion?

Second. Okay. We'll do a roll call again. Dean vote on the motion to adjurnn. Yes. Motion to return. Carrie? Yes. Okay. Um, yes. Yes. And Gary, votes yes.