Readfield Board of Appeals reopens May 1 variance, says barn-height issue belongs with planning board

The Readfield Board of Appeals voted unanimously May 29 to reopen and amend its May 1 decision on a variance for an agricultural barn, saying an exception in the town's Land Use Ordinance likely places the height issue under the planning board's authority.

Chair of the Board of Appeals opened the hearing and summarized the reason for reconvening: "We have a representative from the town attorney who pointed out an exception in Article 7, Table 2, footnote 4, that may allow barns to exceed the usual height limit," and that, if the footnote applies, "this matter is really not under the jurisdiction of the Board of Appeals." The board discussed options including voiding the prior decision or wording the amended decision to reflect lack of jurisdiction rather than a merits denial.

The board first approved the minutes from the May 1 meeting. A motion to accept the minutes passed with five members voting in favor and one abstention. Later, after discussion, a motion to reconsider the May 1 decision was moved and seconded and passed unanimously, reopening the prior decision for further action.

Board members and staff reviewed the ordinance language and the implications for procedure. The chair summarized the effect: "We will add a paragraph stating that, based on the Land Use Ordinance review, the Board of Appeals does not have jurisdiction on this matter and the applicant should seek a height increase from the planning board." Members said they preferred language that avoided framing the action as a substantive "deny" of the applicant's request and instead emphasized jurisdictional limits and referral.

The board also checked procedural housekeeping: notice of the May 29 hearing had been sent and there was no registry record that a variance certificate had been issued, so rescinding or voiding the prior decision would not require reversal of recorded action. Board members noted neighbor testimony and site observations about increased runoff and nutrient flow from a nearby hill and school ball field but agreed those drainage concerns are better addressed at planning-board review.

Town staff and the town manager reviewed statutory standards for variances and the narrow "reasonable return" standard in case law, noting variance relief is intended for limited, unforeseen circumstances and is not a substitute for legislative changes to the ordinance. The board concluded that, because of the ordinance exception, the height question should be considered by the planning board. The Chair said he will draft an amended decision with the added paragraph reflecting reconsideration and lack of jurisdiction; applicants were advised to pursue relief at the planning board.

The board closed the reconsideration and adjourned the meeting.