Wells ZBA Grants Mislocated Building Appeal for Majestic Regency Resort

[0:29] Mr. Gosby: The area we're not on, okay, this is Zoning Board of Appeals. Like to call the meeting to order. First on our agenda is the election of officers, and I want to state right up front, my term is up in November. I do not plan on coming back, so if you guys want to have me be chair for the next two months, okay, fine, but if you'd rather shift to someone else, that's okay, too. [1:03] Mr. Ardini: I'm fine with it. I'm fine with it. We'll live with it the next two months, or a week, and figure it out. That's just kind of my reaction. [1:10] Code Office representative: Our crushing schedule, I know, will be a burden on you. [1:15] Mr. Gosby: Okay. Okay, then, any nominations? [1:19] Mr. Ardini: I'd like to nominate Mr. Gosby to continue as Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Second. [1:27] Mr. Gosby: Any other nominations? Nominations? Seeing none, all in favor of me as chair. Okay. Vice chair. Nominations for vice chair? [1:43] Code Office representative: Mr. Ardini is the current. Are you interested in re-upping? I am. [1:50] Mr. Ardini: I'm with you. Mr. Ardini. Second. [1:55] Mr. Gosby: Any other nominations? Seeing none. All in favor of Mr. Ardini as Vice Chair. We don't do secretary anymore do we? That went away. Because that was just didn't amount to anything. We have a secretary anyway. Okay then. Onward and upward. Tonight the public hearing is for a mislocated building appeal Majestic Regency Resort. Sam Patel I take it that's you sir? Yes sir. Yeah you might as well come forward and sit it right up here where you can see us. San Patel, owner of Majestic Regency Resort, located at 102 Post Road, further identified as Assessor's Tax Map 105, Watt 6, is requesting a mislocated building appeal pursuant to Article 9, Section 145 67A5. The appeal concerns a single story, 3,257 square foot motel facility containing eight one-bedroom units. A 12 foot by 21 foot addition to this structure was formally approved and constructed in 1999. A portion of this addition was built within the 15 foot side setback required by the zoning ordinances in effect at that time. And right now I want to read this the section of the ordinance that allows us to hear this and this is 145.67. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall have of the following powers and duties. And under A5, it's a mislocated building appeal. To hear and decide upon appeal in specific cases where existing buildings are found to be in violation of the setback requirements and where such location of buildings will not be contrary to the public interest whether an appeal should be granted. In order to grant a mislocated building appeal, the board must find there was no willful or premeditated action or gross negligence to build within the setback, and that's that's the criteria that has to be satisfied in order for us to grant this appeal. So having said that, Mr. Patel, you are first up, and you can state your case. Any members of the board who have questions will ask questions through the chair, and you can answer them. Then it will be the code office and any other interested parties. I don't see anybody. And you'll have a chance to rebut also. So, anyway, are you ready to go? Yes, sir. [4:32] Sam Patel: Go ahead. Thank you very much for everybody. Good evening. I'm Sam Patel. I'm the owner of this hotel. We borrowed this hotel in 2020, February 2020, in COVID, and since that time, we have not made any changes of this existing structure or in this land. The building's questions remain exactly as it was when we acquired the property. We respectfully request that this information be taken into consideration during this appeal. WE WERE NOT RESPONSIVE FOR THE PLACEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF THIS BUILDING AT THIS CURRENT LOCATION. PLEASE LET US KNOW IF THERE IS ANY ADDITION DOCUMENTATION TO ASSESS WITH THIS APPEAL. WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND ALLOCATION OF THIS MATTER AND LOOK FORWARD TO FAIR RESOLUTION. [5:29] Mr. Gosby: ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. PATEL? NO QUESTIONS. OKAY. CODE OFFICE. [5:35] Stacy: So before I turn it over to Stacy, I'll premise it by stating that in 2025, May of 2025, they were here before for the kitchen building, but that was based on a partial survey at that time. Since then, they've had a full boundary survey, and the Planning Department and the Planning Board noted on note number 30 that they had until October 30th, 2026 to file. So they're meeting their deadline for that. All of the buildings that are shown on the plan that may not appear are grant filed based on the note on the plan, and I talked to Mike Livingston about this as well, because they were built prior to ordinance. So, the last one, the kitchen building and this one, were the only two that fell into these type of mislocated building appeals. [6:36] Mr. Ardini: I have a question for you, Mike. Okay. [6:40] Mr. Gosby: On your thing, Item 3, it says Motel Building 4 was identified by a recent planning board and constructed. Motel Building 4 is 11.5 feet from the property line, encroaching 3.6 feet into the side setback, which adds up to 15.1 feet. So one or the other is probably incorrect. [7:05] Stacy: It's 3.6 feet into the side setback. 3.6 feet? [7:08] Mr. Gosby: Yeah, we scaled the drawing, that's what we came up with. Then the 11.5 feet is incorrect. It would be a little point for... Okay, minor problem, but I didn't know if you meant three foot six inches or what? Okay, that's just it stuck out at me, that's all. [7:32] Code Office representative: For the code office now, this says it was, this building was originally part of the 1999 and approved site plan for 1999. Yes. And it was approved, but there was never an inspection after it was completed. Is that what I'm reading right on this? There was none in the file, the building permit file that we have. No, different times back then. Yeah, exactly. There's a lot of names on it. But it was approved on the site plan, but it just wasn't inspected, so they [8:01] Stacy: never caught it. Well, it may have been inspected. The way they did inspections, they didn't do the paperwork that we did. They did a lot of notes in the system. That system, since 2004, has been upgraded. A lot of those older notes, if they weren't on paper, are gone. [8:17] Code Office representative: There's no record of it, but... Right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [8:22] Mr. Ardini: So, what triggered this was the planning board's request to do a full survey? [8:31] Stacy: A full boundary survey was submitted unlike the last one, where it was a partial survey. And then that's where they found this one building. [8:38] Mr. Ardini: All right, so it was discovered during that process. Okay, right. So all the rest of the buildings are covered now, correct? Good, all right, thank you. Yeah, you won't see, you shouldn't see [8:48] Code Office representative: him for a third kick. I don't want to, just my last time coming here. We like seeing you every six [8:54] Mr. Gosby: months, every month probably. Okay, good. Do we have any more questions, code office? You got anything else, Mr. Patel? You're good, thank you. Okay, a little bit of discussion that, well, it's, let's make a motion close the public hearing. Make a motion to close the public hearing. Second. Last chance, everybody. Good. All in favor of closing the public hearing, I go ahead. Anybody started off, I don't have [9:34] Mr. Ardini: I don't have any problem with that. Pretty straightforward. And with the two criteria you mentioned, nothing was premeditated or no willful, you know... Willful. No willful action occurred. I think it meets those criteria. [9:49] Stacy: It's been there since before 99, and it's... What is it, 2.7 feet? [10:00] Mr. Gosby: 3.6 feet. 3.6 feet. And there are no abutters here to complain about it, so yeah. And it's, you know, it's been there for, yeah, for at least 27, at least 27. We have draft findings in fact prepared for us here. Let's make a motion to grant it. Well, we can go through the draft findings in fact, and then vote on them. Okay. Is that all right with you? Yeah, they'll cover it. They'll cover it. Yep. Okay. The office very kindly prepared these so that hopefully we don't have to have a second meeting. On today's date, which I believe is the 22nd. 21st. 21st. 21st. 21st. 21st. Right. Well, you are in a case together. Come on, it's going to test us already. Test it. 21 September, 2026. The Zoning Board of Appeals of Wells, Maine held a public hearing for a mislocated building appeal submitted by Sam Patel as allowed by Wells Land Use Ordinance 14567A5. The property is located at 102 Post Road in the GB District and is further identified as Tax Map 105, Lot 6. DELIBERATIONS AND DISCUSSION TOOK PLACE FOLLOWING CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. WELL, WE JUST DELIBERATED AND DISCUSSED. RIGHT. YEAH. BRIEF AS IT WAS, WE DID. WE HAD TO. FINANCE OF FACT, SUBJECT PROPERTY IS OWNED BY SAM PATEL IN THE G.B. DISTRICT AND IS FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS TAX MAP 105 LOT 6. A SITE PLAN OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BY SEVEGO TECHNIQUES, PROJECT NUMBER 240856, DATED 7 1 2026 indicates a portion of motel building 4 is within the required 15 foot setback from old county road and then here's just land use ordinance 145 67 a5 which grants us the authority to do this the subject structure addition was erected in 1999 and acquired by the current owner on February 28 2020 anybody see it has any problem just speak up land use ordinance 145 26 GB district subsection F dimensional requirements in part setbacks all structures shall be at least 15 feet from any lot line 25 feet from the boundary of any cemetery 25 feet from any lot line abutting any street right-of-way and 40 feet from any lot line abutting the right-of-way of any state highway I think since we're talking about the setback from Old County Road which is required to be 25 feet we also need to include section 145 35-35-0, which allows that to be reduced from 25 feet to 15 feet. You guys okay with that? Yeah. Fine. Otherwise, people would look at that and they'd say, what? You know, it's 25 feet, not 15, right? Right. [13:36] Mr. Ardini: Are you suggesting to make an assertion? [13:39] Mr. Gosby: Just to add a sixth point to include Section 145.35.0, which allows them to relax the setback from Old County Road to 15 feet. Okay, good. Otherwise, it just kind of jumps out at you, right? Yeah. If we are okay, then we could vote on accepting the findings of fact as amended. [14:10] Mr. Ardini: I make a motion to accept the findings of fact as amended. I'll second it. All in favor? No discussion? Okay. Excellent. [14:23] Mr. Gosby: Conclusions. Based on the testimony received on today's day, it is the conclusion of the Zoning Board of Appeals that no willful or premeditated action or gross negligence was taken by the appellant to build within the setback. I guess we ought to vote on that as well. Everyone okay with that? [14:44] Mr. Ardini: Entertain a motion to approve the conclusion. Yeah, make a motion that we improve, approve the conclusion based on [15:01] Mr. Gosby: the above findings of fact and conclusions. On 21 September 2026, the Wales Zoning Board of Appeals decided by a vote to grant your mislocated building appeal for the existing structure at 102 Post. Wrote all in favor of granting this appeal. Okay, the appeal is granted. So it's just a matter of getting this thing typed up and signed, and you're good to go. Next on the agenda, we have minutes. Any other comments people have? No comments. From the minutes that are approved as amended for December 8th, 2025. Anything anybody wants to talk about from a practical point? There have been times when you just couldn't scrape up a quorum of people who had attended a specific meeting. Yeah. Sometimes people leave the board, they don't show up. Yeah, it was tough. [17:07] Code Office representative: We had the interim in between, and then Dr. Cohen was signing. Yeah. I was trying to get him to come in. [17:15] Mr. Gosby: So I forget the section, but I found it in Robert's Rules. It said, whoever you elect to this seat has the power to approve the minutes. [17:26] Code Office representative: And that's it. We should be ready for that next year. [17:30] Mr. Ardini: Are there any other appeals in? Quiet yet. You're doing very well. [17:40] Mr. Gosby: Not like the good old days, huh, Jason? Oh, I see. We had to tell them to limit it to three appeals. Well, that was the other committee we were on. Oh. [18:06] Mr. Ardini: I make a motion that we adjourn the meeting. [18:10] Mr. Gosby: Second. All in favor? The meeting is adjourned. Thank you, everyone.