PALMYRA, Maine — Palmyra town officials said they still are willing to work with an 81-year-old resident whose porch is not in compliance with town rules.
Raymond Phelps has been fighting the town to keep the porch he built on the side of his house.
The Board of Selectmen went into executive session during its last meeting on Jan. 25 to discuss the town’s legal rights and duties regarding the matter.
“We will be working with Mr. Phelps to find some kind of agreement,” Chairwoman Vondel Dunphy said after the executive session.
Selectman Mike Cray said the town has been trying to get Phelps to comply for nearly two years. The town finally saw no choice but to sue Phelps. The matter was heard in Skowhegan District Court on Jan. 23.
At the hearing, Judge Peter Darvin seemed concerned that Phelps didn’t understand the ramifications if the town prevailed in the case.
“You’re potentially facing some significant financial penalties,” said Darvin.
Phelps and Gary Beem, chairman of the planning board, said last month that the issue revolved around a 75-foot setback from the center of Oxbow Road.
But Cray said that isn’t the case. He said Phelps received a permit to build a porch on the side of his house, but he built beyond what the permit called for.
Cray said town officials will meet with Phelps on Monday morning to try to resolve the issue without going back to court.
“We’re going to outline it for him to come into compliance. We have some options to be able to do that,” Cray said Friday after talking with Phelps’ son Raymond Phelps III in Newport. “I don’t think it will cost him anything to do that. We’re really working with him and I think [Phelps’ son] really saw that.”
Members of the Board of Selectmen said the 75-foot setback was put in place after Phelps received his permit for the porch. If he makes the porch come into compliance, he won’t have to worry about the setback ordinance, said Cray.
“To make this work, he has to come back into compliance,” said Cray. “He will have to take off the roof and the addition he’s put on, and he should be back into compliance.
“From our point, we’re working with him to come up with a reasonable solution for both the town and for Raymond. We’re not trying to kick him out of his house,” he said. “I think we got it pretty well worked out, but we have to run it by [Phelps] first.”
If Phelps accepts the town’s solution, it will move to the Board of Selectmen for approval, said Cray. If Phelps rejects it, the court process will move forward.
“It all hinges on what he wants to do,” said Cray.
Phelps could not be reached for comment Friday.
Reduculess, it’s just a porch!
Exactly and it sounds like he will have a deck…. instead of an enclosed porch. Last I checked…a porch usually has a roof on it anyway.
welcome to the soviet states of america.
OK, he received a permit for the porch BEFORE the 75ft set back was put into place (March of 2009) ….he shouldn’t need to tear the roof off or anything to be in compliance. It would be interesting to do a little research to see who exactly “proposed” this 75ft set back ordinance and who voted on it to pass? Time to check the minutes……
I think your right, not all of the story here in the article. Did he go beyond the permit or did they change the rules.
Check into the neighbor across the road. He’s on the board of selectmen.
this is sick lets pick on the elderly suck it up and get over it its just a porch not a house whats next
Phelps received a permit to build a porch…but he built beyond what the permit called for.
Code enforcement can be frustrating and irritating. Avoid the hassle–comply with your permit. Phelps isn’t being taken to court for a 75-foot setback. He’s being taken to court for violating the rules that apply to everyone.
Mr. Phelps said that if he loses this case, he’s going to move into the woods and become a hermit. There are building rules that apply there also. Say “Hi” to Grizzly Adams and “Ted” Kaczynski if you see them.
EDIT: According to ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PALMYRA, MAINE, a building permit is required to erect a habitable dwelling.
“PALMYRA BOARD OF SELECTMEN MINUTES Wednesday, July 13, 2011 – 5:30 pm
Planning Board
1. Raymond Phelps – land use violation – Selectman Cray explained that Mr.
Phelps was supposed to clean up his property (per a consent agreement)
by the 1st of June. He is still in violation of the land use AND HAS ADDED MORE TO THE BUILDING. Selectman Harriman asked if anyone would help Mr. Phelps take stuff down. He said that he believes Mr. Phelps is overwhelmed. Roxanne Brooks said that Ron Rowe did offer to haul some stuff away, and Mr. Phelps said “no”. Motion made by Selectman Cray to
proceed with court procedures and to send the consent agreement (signed by Mr. Phelps) to the lawyer. Selectman Harriman said that he is not sure that he wants to take him to court. Selectman Cray told him that Mr. Phelps has disregarded everything that they have tried to do for him and that the building is a safety issue. Motion to proceed with legal action—
seconded by Selectwoman Jones. Selectwoman Dunphy and Jones and Selectmen Cray and Barrows in favor. Selectman Harriman opposed. Motion passed. A copy of the consent agreement will be sent to the lawyer. “
Again, time to check the minutes to see who is behind all of this and why? ……it’s a porch!
not if it’s his land he don’t .. LOL never heard of having to get a ‘ permit’ to camp out in your own land. If, so then my kids and all have broke ‘ compliance with town’s rules.”
He can have the setback waived because it came into effect after he had the permit, it should be waived anyway. If he isn’t being taken to court do to the setback, then why is it constantly the issue being brought up by the town?
As far as the permit violation, the town can cite him and waive the fine. Problem solved. But they are right, someone or someones on that board have an ax to grind with an 81 year old man.
The guy across the street. Selectman.
Wow….after watching the video of Mr. Phelps after the court proceedings, I wonder if he truly “understood” what he was signing in the first place? Think about it…. why would he sign something that he disagrees with? The only obvious reasons are; a cognitve deficit or being pressured (bullied). Sounds like an unethical procedure that took place among all the selectmen on 7/13/2011, except for Mr. Harriman who had the insight to see how WRONG THIS IS! give the man a waiver ….its a porch after all
75ft really? Town officials are bored in Palmyra…
If the man’s porch is not in the road right of way then the town should have nothing to say about it, but of course our property rights are being destroyed gradually year after year.
So true, but the town keeps after him…..for some reason???
Maybe someone should research the who and why? More of a story there, I bet!
Because most of these one horse towns have power hungary AH’s in charge…nothing better to do than harrass an 81 year old…not the first time I have seen it. He should have buttered their palms and the porch would be up by now~
Here’s some friendly advice for the “selectmen” and town “officials”;
You had better get your resume up-dated and your affairs in order, because if you “move forward” against this man and his property you Will experience a backlash against your position. You will need to seek employment elsewhere. Perhaps Massachusetts or some other foreign land where the people have no rights. The “masses” have had enough of your “feudal” rule.
We Will Rise Up in Support of this Free man’s Right to his Private Property!
As many a Patriot is known to say,
“They may take our Lives, But they will Never take Our FREEDOM !”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLrrBs8JBQo
Ya, poor 81 year old man. He can’t understand english and can’t follow the rules. He had a permit for such and such but he couldn’t follow that, he had to excede the limit and then claim ignorance. If you were 19 yrs old there’d be no one standing up for you. You can’t play by the rules? Well, get slapped, no matter the age. Smart old fox. Just do what’s asked of all of us and quit the poor old me attitude.
leave him alone
Leave him alone. That was my first thought after reading the article like tbw207. They have nothing better to do. Maybe it is just busy work to keep their jobs. Maybe their jobs are not that important. Maybe they could be downsized and save the townspeople some money.
Palmyra, the gated community with the immaculately manicured grounds – NOT! Actuarial Tables indicate that within a few years, this will all be resolved amicably and at no cost to the town. Leave the old crotchety sumgun to himself.
This ordinance was adopted March 11, 1989. Attached at the end of the ordinance is a list of amendments and the dates adopted. ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PALMYRA, MAINE March 14, 2009 – Art. III, Sect. 3-6 – Front setbacks increase by 25 feet (to be measured from the center of the town road instead of right-of-way). P:OrdinancesZoning Ordinance.doc ***When and who proposed this amendment and why was this adopted on 3/14/2009?
there are not many houses in this town that are not in violation of something
…..
I am so glad I don’t live there. can’t help a 81 year old man. what a town.
While I like your thinking, you might want to check the land use rules and regs in the area your property is in. We found that after 150yrs of continuous use by our family, initially as the family homestead/farm and as a year round camp in all the intervening years, that is was “illegal” for anyone to live all year at the family camp. It was not “zoned” as such. Of course we told them kiss our behinds. So they just kept raising the taxes until they ran us out.
Yep, America the Beautiful, land of the free.
So sorry to hear that about your family farm. I think I will check out the rules and regs….sounds like this man needs some legal help to figure all of this out. Maybe a good project for some pre-law student….they love this type of thing!
What a bunch of ars*holes…………………
It is not unusual for a town to have setbacks from a property line as pertains to building requirements. This is usually enforced as pertains to adjacent properties. The sole purpose of this is to insure that buildings are not constructed upon a neighbors property due to slight variations of actual lines or old surveys. That does not seem to be the case here. Also cannot seem to find “Oxbow Rd” in the DeLorme mapping software. Must not be a very significant road or perhaps a name change. Funny thing is the first story says he didn’t have a permit, next story says he did have a permit but exceeded the limits of the permit. Personally If the “oxbow rd” does not have a 100 ‘ right of way then the setback of an additional 25’ should not interfere. Setbacks are customarily measured from known or agreed upon property lines. Building proximities to each other are for safety and fire prevention purposes. It would seem that if this man had his permit prior to the adoption of this ordinance then he is exempt all the way around. In any event every ordinance has the ability to grant a waiver. The town officials appear to have ulterior motives in this case and would be wise to drop the pursuit of this matter. It is a no win situation all the way around. It would also seem prudent to find out who proposed and why such an extraordinary setback was adopted in the first place. It should be found in the public records.
Yes you would think that he would be EXEMPT to this ordinance because he had a permit prior to 3/14/2009, but they say that he is not in compliance and I would ask… to what? Oh, the Oxbow Road was known as Route 100 before the 911 change, it is a main road that is maintained by the State.
The only route which MIGHT have a 100 ft right of way would be route 2. Previous posts have stated that is not the case, that this road does not have a 100 ft right of way. In any event you state that he did have his permit prior to the enactment of the town’s setback ordinance. If the town also required that there be a retro active clause in the adoption of that ordinance then it would have specifically targeted this man. If they did not , he is grandfathered by the dates of issuance. It would be good to request a copy of the permit application and publish it simply so the posters here could see exactly what was permitted and therefore make an informed conclusion as to the intent of the town officials.
Ya leave the poor old man alone and give him a veriance. This a simple case of elder abuse!