Castine
Castine Patriot, July 15, 2010
Castine Appeals Board says 'no' to library addition

BY JONATHAN THOMAS
Castine’s Board of Appeals, at its July 7 meeting, dealt another setback to the trustees of the Witherle Memorial Library in their quest to obtain a permit for an addition.

By a vote of 3-1 (Kimball) the appeals board upheld a previous ruling of the Castine Planning Board to deny a permit for the library to add a 1,356-square-foot two-story addition to the end of its building, located on the Common. (The planning board’s May 13 denial came in the form of a 2-2-tie vote to grant the permit. See May 20 issue of the Castine Patriot.)

In the opening presentation before the appeals board, Margery Read, chairman of the library trustees, expanded on the two-page statement that was part of the appeal application. In it, the trustees asked the appeals board to make a finding that the planning board had “erred in failing to grant permission” for the library expansion. (See June 24 edition of the Patriot.)

The issue that led to the planning board’s denial is whether the library should be required to provide off-street parking as a condition of the permit. A provision in the town’s zoning ordinance requires structures in the district where the library is located to have “adequate off-street parking to accommodate all anticipated needs.” The library is nearly 100 years old and is on a small lot.

Based on a square footage formula, the ordinance requires the library to provide eight off-street parking spaces before the addition can be approved. The library trustees assert that the condition cannot be met because of the library’s location and small lot. The trustees asked the planning board to exempt the library from that parking requirement, saying that section 6.23.3 of the zoning ordinance permitted the planning board to grant that exemption.

One by one, the appeals board members commented on the application materials and questioned Read. Although other issues were addressed, the discussions kept returning to the issue of whether the planning board should have made use of section 6.23.3 to exempt the library from the parking requirement.

After one and a half hours of discussion, appeals board chairman Patrick Haugen turned to planning board chairman Dick Starke, who was sitting in the front row with planning board members Robin Mass and Doris Russell. (Starke and Mass voted against motions before the planning board that would have approved the library’s permit. Russell, along with Pår Kettis, who was not present, voted to support the library addition. )

Starke declined a chance to speak, and yielded to Mass, who is an attorney. Mass read a nearly seven-page detailed response to assertions made in the library’s appeal application.

Mass’ first point was that the planning board was not obligated to invoke section 6.23.3 because the word “may” in the text was permissive and not mandatory. She said the planning board’s discretion was limited by certain conditions that had to be met.

Mass said the appellants’ assertion that the four conditions required by 6.23.3 were met is “unsupported by evidence in the record.” Specifically, Mass stated that the appellants’ statement that “‘no off-street parking exists” does not meet the standard in the fourth condition that the “the proposed addition is designed so as to maximize the potential for off-street parking.” In fact, continued Mass, “no design or other evidence was presented to the Planning Board with any parking elements whatsoever.”

Mass then responded to various other arguments made by the appellants, noting that some were not correct review standards, did not support the appellants’ argument, or were “not correct.”

During his comments early in the meeting Haugen noted that in his view several items were missing from the record, including a parking plan for whatever parking might have been created, whether it was for the required eight spaces or not.

Haugen also said that to him the planning board entries on the written findings of fact form were incomplete, showing only the 2-2 split votes, with no further information.

As the meeting drew to a close Haugen began to frame two possible options the appeals board might take. One option was that the board could agree the planning board had made an incorrect finding and remand the matter to the planning board. Or, the appeals board could find that the planning board had made no egregious errors and deny the library’s application.

Kimball spoke up to say that to him the missing data on the planning board’s findings of fact forms was a significant omission. Kimball, who is also an attorney, cited court decisions and procedures and said the appeals board did not have sufficient information to determine whether or not the planning board had acted properly. He recommended the board go with a third option: “to send it back and tell them to do this right,” and not pass judgment on whether the planning board made “fundamental error” in the way it resolved the case. Other board members acknowledged the validity of Kimball’s statements, but none were willing to second his implied motion.

After further discussion of legal issues involving the wording of the ordinance and relevant court decisions, David Jones and Jim Shanley joined Haugen in voting to support a motion saying, “the planning board did not make any egregious errors or omissions in determining their denial of the Witherle Memorial Library site plan review.” Board member Clark Kimball voted no. The fifth board member, Tim Leach, was not present.

After the vote, Haugen said he would prepare a decision form with exact wording for board members to sign. The Castine Planning Board met July 8 and discussed proposed warrant articles to amend parking provisions in the zoning ordinance. See story in this issue.

Share this page

Return to the Castine Patriot home page.
Return to the Community News home page.

---