Buckfield planning board reverses itself on setback decision

BUCKFIELD — In a stunning reversal, the Buckfield planning board — after only two months ago declining to take action — has now decided that it will offer voters an amendment to town building codes after all.

That amendment will address specific wording in the town’s Building Permit, Lot Size and Setback Requirements Ordinance.  The proposed changes come as a result of issues which arose in October, when a mini hornet’s nest was touched off over three tiny words: “in no case.”

Because of these words — which had only just been inserted into the ordinance at the annual town meeting in June 2003 — the appeals board was unable to grant a variance to the Zadoc Long Free Public Library.

The library had been hoping to expand the rear of the building, constructing a 12-foot by 12-foot addition to improve handicapped accessibility.  Unfortunately, the proposed addition would have come within 10 and a half feet of a property line, and according to the ordinance, “in no case” was the appeals board allowed to let any structure, or expansion, encroach within 15-feet.

“To me, it’s clear that we don’t have the jurisdiction,” appeals board member Richard Clark said at the time.

Chairman Fred Greenwood was prone to even stronger words.

“To me, that shouldn’t be there in the first place,” he had said.  “I think we were doing a good job before it was there.  I think it’s just [that] somebody wants to run things, and they put that in there to stop us from doing what we do.  They actually put the appeals board out of business, is what they did.” 

Immediately upon refusing the library’s request for a variance, the appeals board drafted a letter to the planning board, requesting that it reassess wording of the ordinance.  Unfortunately, they were met with stiff opposition.

“I would be opposed to getting rid of the ‘in no case may the Board of Appeals allow,’” planning board member Wes Ackley had said.  “We put that in specifically for the reason that things would come back to the planning board for discussion and passage.”

That refusal to even consider amending the ordinance did not seem to sit well with appeals board members, who had chosen to attend a planning board meeting at which their letter was to be addressed.

“I’m confused,” challenged Clark.  “Is the appeals board the appeals board, or is the planning board the appeals board?”

And there matters sat.  With the planning board declining to recommend a change, it seemed that nothing short of a petition drive could bring the matter before voters.

However, planning board chairman Judy Berg felt that the issue should not be allowed to die quite so easily. 

“All we really did was respond in a meeting without really taking a look at it [the ordinance,]” she said.  “And I realized that people really wanted us to take a closer look.”

So, at the November meeting of the planning board, Berg set up a subcommittee consisting of board members Margot Siekman and Roberta Hill.  This subcommittee was charged with making a detailed examination of all relevant ordinances in question, and reporting back to the board with a recommendation.

That response came at the board’s regular December meeting.

“I’m inclined to say that the appeals board is there to do a job and maybe we should let them do that job,” advised Siekman, after having completed her work.

“It is not unique to Buckfield to place limits on its appeals board,” said planning board member Gerald Samson.

Siekman agreed, and enumerated her own reservations about opening up the possibility for additional variance requests.  Her primary concern was the potential for a loss of property rights for the neighbors of anyone granted such a variance.

“By virtue of the other person having taken more than his share, then this other person is really limited in what they can do,” she said.

“I’m not totally comfortable with it [an ordinance change,]” concluded Siekman, “but I’m not comfortable with it the way it stands now. I don’t see what else we can do.”

A good part of Ackley’s resistance, as a former fire chief for the town, had arisen out of a concern for fire safety.  However, Berg, having done some additional research of her own, was able to counter by noting that the National Fire Protection Agency only recommends a 10-foot setback between buildings.

Other forces also were at work, such that Ackley soon found himself championing a minority viewpoint. 

Recently, there has been a fair amount of turnover on Buckfield’s planning board, with three new members —  Hill, Samson, and Richard Piper — having been appointed in recent months.  This has significantly altered both the make-up and the mood of the seven-member board from what it was in 2003 — at which time Ackley had been chair — when the “in no case” clause was introduced.

Planning Board members have also recently begun work on the town’s new comprehensive plan, and there has been near universal agreement that, perhaps, it would be a good idea to have varying setback requirements in different parts of town anyway, most specifically with shorter setbacks in the downtown village area.

Perhaps sensing that the tide was turning against him, Ackley noted that he would be willing to “give up the sanctity” of the 15-foot property line setback.  However, he declared that his concerns for fire safety were such that he still felt compelled to argue for the 30-foot setback between structures.

Ackley then introduced a compromise that, rather than completely shutting out the ability of the appeals board to act, would require that any variance “will not create a safety or fire hazard as determined by the Buckfield fire chief.”

“Depending on [the final wording of] it, I’m not sure that the fire chief will have veto power, versus input,” said Town Manager Glen Holmes.  “The appeals board is going to make their decision by gathering all the facts.  This is going to be one of those things where they will be required to at least consult with the fire chief as to what the situation might be.”

Regarding whatever increase this proposed change may create in his own workload, Buckfield’s current fire chief, Steve Bly, said in a separate interview, that he is happy to do anything that will “make things better and safer” for local residents.

In addition to easing restrictions on the appeals board, the planning board also will propose two additional amendments to the town’s building ordinance.   These changes will specify that a well is not to be considered a “structure” and will limit each building lot (20,000 square feet) to only one dwelling per parcel, with the exception of apartment buildings.

The text of the proposed amendments have now been sent to both the appeals board and the selectmen.  Once both bodies have had an opportunity to comment on the changes, the planning board will schedule a pubic hearing.

Berg does not expect any hearing date to be set “before February.”

Holmes stated that he does not foresee scheduling a special town meeting to vote on the changes.  Unless the library resubmits its building permit application, or some other issue arises which presents an immediate need, the changes will simply be included as a warrant at the annual town meeting in June, 2005.

Berg was able to sum up the complexities which have plagued the planning board over the last several months.

“It is hard to write an ordinance that applies across the board, because you have so many permutations,” she concluded.