Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Frontage Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Limington Board of Appeals tells applicants to pursue right-of-way or land purchase after frontage dispute
Summary
Sandra and David Veto asked the Limington Board of Appeals for a 20-foot frontage variance on Map R16 Lot 48. The board concluded the lot division postdated the town's frontage ordinance, making a variance unlikely, and recommended creating a 50-foot private right-of-way or acquiring adjacent land instead.
Sandra and David Veto asked the Limington Board of Appeals on Nov. 10 to grant a 20-foot road-frontage variance for Map R16 Lot 48, telling the panel the parcel has been in their family for more than a century and had historically shown a 30-foot road frontage.
"This property has had the 30 foot road frontage for over 100 years," Applicant Sandra Veto said, describing family ownership back to her great-grandmother and a deed reference that once reflected narrower frontage than current town maps. The Vetos said they carved a 3.4-acre parcel out of a larger parent lot this summer and now face the town's frontage requirement when attempting to sell and build.
Board members examined town maps, deed language and survey notes and identified a central legal obstacle: the lot division occurred after the town's ordinance increased frontage requirements. "When you created that, you made a lot that was nonconforming to the ordinance," Board member Ken said, noting that a post-ordinance division typically complicates claims of grandfathered rights and weakens a variance case.
The board reviewed two practical alternatives for creating legal frontage. One is to establish a private 50-foot-wide right-of-way (a "paper right-of-way" built to town specifications) that would provide the required 300 feet of frontage in effect; the other is to acquire an adjacent lot to create conforming frontage. Board members flagged engineering constraints: any route likely would cross a brook, could require a small bridge, traverse wetlands and negotiate steep terrain, and therefore carry construction and permitting costs.
Board members also discussed inconsistencies between town mapping and deed records (survey figures discussed in the meeting ranged from about 30.08 feet up toward the mid-40s), and they recommended the applicants get additional survey work and legal advice. Surveyor "Butch" was mentioned as a resource who might suggest precise easement or right-of-way layouts.
On the ordinance question, panel members recalled the town used to allow narrower frontage in prior decades but agreed the current standard (discussed in the hearing as a 300-foot frontage requirement for new lots and a 50-foot width for private ways) governs lots created after the ordinance's adoption. The board concluded that, because this lot was divided after the ordinance took effect, a variance would face an uphill legal challenge.
The board did not grant a variance at the hearing. Instead, members counseled the Vetos to pursue either a private right-of-way across family-owned land, purchase adjacent lot 45 if feasible, or consult further with their surveyor and an attorney about technical options and easement language. The panel closed the matter and moved to adjourn after finishing the meeting's business.
What happens next: the Vetos were advised to pursue detailed survey work and to consider either acquiring neighboring property or creating a town-spec private right-of-way to meet frontage requirements. The board's guidance, as recorded in the hearing, stopped short of a formal grant of relief and left further steps to the applicants' discretion and follow-up filings if they choose to proceed.
