Town of Vassalboro, Maine
Board of Appeals

Meeting June 29th, 2015

Call to Order: 7:00 P.M.
Board Members:

_X_ Kathleen Lees, Chair
_X_ Gary Coull
_X_ John Reuthe
_X_ Peggy Cain
_X_ Leon Duff
Municipal Staff: _X_ Richard A. Dolby, CEO/LPI

Charles Proctor
331 Stone Rd.
Vassalboro, Maine


John W. Lord Jr. site evaluator
Chris Evers Adam’s Real Estate
Conrad Mc Naughton contractor

Opening presentation by Dick Dolby, CEO/LPI who identified:
- the location of the lot, 331 Stone Rd. Map 9; Lot 52
- the Applicant/Property Owner, Charles Proctor
- the realtor (Adams Realty) Chris Evers
- the site evaluator: John W. Lord Jr.
- the excavation contractor: Conrad McNaughton
- the Abutter: Earl Vannah

The Code Enforcement Officer began with a brief presentation:

Property owner purchased the property on or about 2010, since that time a garage was built by the owner, the driveway to the garage was arranged in such a manner as it passed over the existing subsurface waste water disposal system. The older system was a trench system.

The property owner has lost his wife recently and has decided to move, during the process of attempting to sell the property an evaluation of the septic system has discovered the system failed and is in in need of replacement.

The abutting property owner, Earl Vannah, had come to the town office and meet with me, prior the submission of the permit application by the site evaluator, to advise me he was concerned with the potential location of a replacement septic system. He shared with me his concern for a strict adherence to the setback required by the Town of Vassalboro.

The soil evaluator, meet with the property owner and tested the soils and then designed an appropriate subsurface waste water disposal system. An HHE-200 was prepared and brought to the town office by the site evaluator.

As CEO/LPI, I reviewed the application with the site evaluator and noted that there is a local municipal ordinance “Building Permit Ordinance” that contains a provision that needs to be satisfied in the issuance of a subsurface waste water disposal system in particular:

Section 8 Administration

B. Permits

2. Requirements for permitting

g. Setbacks for subsurface wastewater disposal systems-
A minimum setback of 50 feet from property boundaries shall be maintained for all new subsurface wastewater disposal systems including the leach field and septic tank.
Replacement systems shall meet this setback requirement to the greatest extent practical.

The site evaluator, then returned to the property and prepared a second design which did reduce the extent of the greatest extent possible, in his opinion.

At the time the design was prepared Mr. Lord indicated he was not aware of the presence of any contributing factors that could or should influence the design criteria.

The site evaluator John W. Lord Jr. presented his knowledge regarding the property and limitations of the site for locating a replacement subsurface wastewater disposal system.

He responded to several proposed sites (4) and explained the limitations of each, and the rational for choosing the design location proposed.

He noted that he had conversation with the abutter, Mr. Vannah, and that the presence of a well/s was not brought up until the Friday before the meeting of the appeals board.

Ms. Evers, shared her knowledge of the property and that the sale of could not receive financing unless a replacement subsurface wastewater disposal system is installed.

Mr. Vannah, participated in the discussion at various points, expressing concern for the ultimate location proposed and noted the applicants placement of the garage limited the choices of sites unnecessarily. Mr. Vannah, questioned the value of the accessory structures, a shed and barn and questioned why they could not be removed to permit the replacement to be install on the same side of the existing trench system is.

Mr. Proctor, the applicant took, a dim view of his accessory structures being classified as of little value and was reluctant to offer their removal.

The Chair of the Board of Appeals, suggested the board consider the variance criteria in light of the testimony offered by all parties. The board members discussed the criteria and moved the question.

The Board voted unanimously to approve a variance of the fifty foot setback from a property line to the dimension identified in the Subsurface Wastewater Disposal System Application (noting the application is for a replacement system).

The Board Chair explained that the decision to issue a variance is subject to appeal in Superior Court, an appeal if submitted would be required within forty-five (45) days from the date of the formal decision

The Board of Appeals closed their deliberations at 8:30 P.M.