MINOT — The Board of Appeals on Wednesday denied Chuck Starbird’s appeal of the town’s refusal to grant him a building permit for his property, which lies beyond the town-accepted portion of York Road.

The issue was whether Starbird would be allowed to use an existing public easement that crosses a 135-foot section of an abandoned portion of York Road as his right of way to the public road.

Starbird’s lawyer, Scott Lynch, argued that it was a short distance, that the trailway wasn’t in bad shape and that it wouldn’t cost the town anything to maintain it.

Lynch noted that in town records it says that another owner of land along the abandoned road was told by a selectman that the town would build a road up to where the person built a house.

“You’ll have a statement that the town won’t have to upgrade the road,” Lynch said.

Appeals Board Chairman David Murphy said that was then and this is now; the town is no longer interested in having houses built along some of its old abandoned roads.

Three of the board’s four members said they could not grant his request.

“Go to the two people who own the 135 feet and see if you can purchase a right of way to the public road,” Murphy said.

When it appeared the board was leaning toward digging its heels in on the issue of the 135-foot gap between Starbird’s property and the public road, Lynch recalled that he had raised issues concerning the common definition of “back lot” used in other towns. He pointed out that when Starbird bought the 5-acre lot he intended to build on, the previous owner, Kevin Franchetti, had specifically included a deeded right of way to York Road.

“Is it worth the town’s case to spend $10,000 for the 135 feet?” Lynch asked.

Asked whether that was a threat, Lynch responded that it wasn’t, that he was looking for what was fair.

After the board’s 3-1 vote denying the appeal, Lynch told the board he was willing to waive the requirement that the board issue a written decision within 35 days if it would allow him to refile his appeal to address some specific issues the board had raised that he had not developed sufficiently.

Lynch noted that it could spare both sides a lot of expense.

“I would like the opportunity to show you that development of back lots can be done OK with an easement,” Lynch said.

 By a unanimous vote, the board agreed to allow Lynch time to refile his appeal.