Pittsfield appeals board grants variances after lengthy debate over setbacks

The Pittsfield Board of Appeals voted to grant variances Monday for property owners seeking to replace or slightly enlarge deteriorated outbuildings that do not meet town setback rules.

Scott Williams, the property owner appealing a denied permit, told the board his existing shed has a dirt floor and is "basically useless," and that he wanted to replace it in the same spot with a structure 8 feet longer. "I just kind of like to put a decent building back where there's been one for seems like forever," Williams said during the public hearing.

The board spent more than an hour reviewing the four criteria the town uses for setback variances: (A) whether the land cannot yield a reasonable return without a variance; (B) whether the need arises from unique property circumstances; (C) whether granting a variance would alter the essential character of the locality; and (D) whether the hardship results from actions of the applicant. The chair read the criteria aloud and asked members to apply them to each appeal.

Board members split over the first criterion, which asks whether denying a variance would prevent a reasonable return. "If you can rebuild the same footprint without this variance, that's not necessarily a reasonable-return hardship," Justin, a board member, said during the discussion, noting that replacing a decrepit structure in the same footprint would typically preserve value. Other members emphasized residents' changing storage needs and property-maintenance concerns, noting on the record that an expanded building could improve livability.

A separate concern raised by board members was precedent. "If you allow it for one, you have to allow it for all," one member said, repeating advice the board had received about consistent application of the code. Members also referred to advice from town attorneys and to the fact that the town's adopted setback language mirrors example language in a referenced Southwest Harbor code book; several members said Pittsfield is working with KV COG to update outdated ordinances.

Despite earlier comments that the first criterion had not been met, the board ultimately voted in favor of a motion that resulted in at least one applicant receiving a variance. The chair announced, "All right. You got your variance," and told the successful applicant they would receive a letter and could proceed to obtain a building permit.

For a later appeal from an applicant identified as Caleb for a garage at or near 132 Street, the board reviewed maps and measurements and concluded the new garage would not be closer to the property line than the prior structure. Justin moved to grant that variance; Mike seconded, and the motion passed unanimously, the chair said.

The board did not change setback ordinances at the meeting; several members and staff reiterated that ordinance changes would need to go through the planning board and town council. The meeting record indicates members plan to continue work on code updates but that such changes will require a separate public process.

The board adjourned after notifying successful applicants that written confirmation and instructions to apply for building permits would follow.