Staff:                 Barbara McPheters, Code Enforcement Officer, Pam Bosarge, Clerk

The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m.

Mr. Wyman welcomed the applicants and gave an overview of the order of the meeting.  Stating there would be opportunity for public testimony and four positive votes would be required to approve a request.  The Board has a quorum, but is missing three members.
Hearings and Presentations

1.      Variance                                   Lex Holley
Ms. McPheters presented background information as follows: Lex Holley requests a variance of twenty-five (25) feet from the thirty (30) foot side setback requirement for a porch on a single family dwelling at 23 South Shore Drive on Map I01 Lot 25 in the Island Residential/Limited Residential Shoreland Overlay (IR/LR) Districts.

The applicant is requesting a variance to build a porch at the location where one existed in the past.  Our records do not show a porch on the previous assessing cards dating back to 1964.  A permit was issued on September 17, 2002 for renovations based on the owners representations that the work was to include "repair to porch.  After verifying information from an abutter that the porch had not existed for a considerable length of time, the owner was advised that the porch construction was in violation of the zoning ordinance.  The owner is now exercising his option to request a variance to correct the violation.

The variance request must comply with undue hardship definition found in Section 104.138 of the Zoning Ordinance.

Ms. McPheters stated she had received a phone call in support of the request by Deborah Johnson of 19 South Shore Drive, Chebeague.

Mr. Holley, applicant stated he had purchased the property in the summer of 2000, at the closing it was represented that the porch and footings had previously existed.  He submitted a building permit application for a porch.  He had checked the setbacks from the water and the road with the assumption there was plenty of room on the side.  After the porch was constructed a neighbor Ms. Slagle of 27 South Shore Drive presented a survey from Acme Engineering, which he couldn't find recorded in the Registry.  He stated he was requesting an after the fact variance.  Mr. Holley presented an historical picture with the porch on the property.

Mr. Manahan stated a survey might show there is no violation.

Mr. Holley stated that in reviewing deeds was not an easy fix.

Mr. Manahan asked if the porch was closer than the existing structure.

Mr. Holley stated no; he had removed an existing overhang.

Mr. Manahan stated the Board had discussed amending the non-conforming wording to add as long as the addition does not increase the non-conformity.

Mr. Black asked the applicant to identify photos and documents.  He asked about the existing porch footings.

Mr. Holley stated they could have been from the 1978 porch permit.

Mr. Black asked about the driveway next to the house.

Mr. Holley stated that was the area in dispute.

Mr. Manahan asked when the porch was removed.

Mr. Holley stated it was sketchy there was no definitive time as to when the porch existed.

Mr. Black asked if there was a front setback violation.

Ms. McPheters stated she didnt think so.

Mr. Manahan asked if there was a time frame for non-conforming and abandonment.  He stated the re-construction and re-placement sections of the Ordinance do not have a time in the section.

Ms. McPheters stated the porch needed to exist at permit application, not back in 1964.

Mr. Wyman asked for public comment that was in favor of the application.
There was none.

He asked for testimony that was in opposition.

Mr. James Phipps, of 47 Deer Point Road sated he was an attorney with Pretti-Flaherty and at the request of Ruth Slagle an abutter was asked to review several issues.
Mr. Phipps stated the burden was high to establish that the property was not able to yield a reasonable return without the porch.  He contended that the house could be used with or without a porch.  A porch was not essential for a reasonable return and requested the variance be denied based on the criteria in Section 104.138.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Phipps stated Section 104.138.2 states the need for a variance is due to the unique circumstances of the property.  The neighborhood consists of small lots, which are not a unique to the Island.  If a variance were issued the Board would violate the existing conditions of the neighborhood, which are small houses on small lots.  The Board must find that the hardship is not the result of action taken by the applicant or prior owner.  The porch is a nice addition, however the lack of a porch does not create a hardship.  The porch was added without a permit and without accurate setback information.  There has been no porch structure there for a minimum of twenty years, and probably closer to thirty years.  The historical porch in the photo is not the same, the ell on the house was twelve feet shorter when the former porch existed.  The Board has no basis to grant a variance.  The porch is a nice looking addition and it is difficult to ask that the applicant be denied, and remove the porch.  It is up to the Town to have property owners conform to local zoning on Chebeague Island.  Mr. Phipps stated in the shoreland zone there is a very high burden to meet the undue hardship criteria.  All property owners with shorefront should be subject to equal rules.  It would be unconscionably to previous applicants who have been denied to grant a variance to Mr. Holley.
In conclusion, the applicant stated he chose to pursue the project without the typical process.  The process can be burdensome, but must be followed.

Mr. Manahan asked why Mr. Phipps client was opposed to the porch.

Mr. Phipps stated that his client was not opposed to the porch, but believes everyone should obey by the shoreland overlay requirements.  She is not personally opposed to the project.  Admittedly, it could be argued it could be a hardship to be denied, however the criteria states the hardship cannot be the result of the applicant.  The applicant could have requested a variance prior to the beginning of construction.

Mr. Turner stated he agreed with Mr. Phipps legal analysis, and stated the Board has turned down requests before in the shoreland overlay.  Was Mr. Phipps aware of any cases where the variance was granted if the encroachment was not going to increase the existing encroachment.

Mr. Phipps stated he was familiar with Ms. Deborah Johnson's request two years ago, he had written a letter in favor of the request, her request was denied.  A porch in the ell that does not increase the non-conformity is not allowed with the existing rules in the Ordinance.

Mr. Phipps stated the shoreland overlay district exists to disallow building except in limited windows.  If the porch had not been built without the proper permits, the owner could have requested a variance prior to construction.

Mr. Black asked about re-construction, because at one time there was a porch as shown in the 1920 or 1930s photo.

Mr. Phipps stated re-construction should be reasonably soon after a demolition, typically after a causality loss such as a fire, or to re-build for functional obsolescence.  In this case there has been no porch for better than eighteen to thirty years.  A reasonable interpretation of the rules states the porch is not being re-constructed.

Mr. Manahan stated the Ordinance states a reconstruction is to be done within one year from the removal of demolition.

Mr. Phipps stated the shoreland protection overlay is to protect the community and ecological systems, from run-off and over development.

Ms. Donna Damon, of 13 Fenderson Road stated she had received phone calls from both Mrs. Slagle and Mr. Holley.  From her research it appears the porch was torn down in the 1950s.  Acme Engineering Companys previous owner Mr. Verrill received a permit in the 1970s and built a room, which extended closer to the property line.  The original porch wrapped around the house and was probably six feet in width.  She voiced concern regarding the lack of factual information.

Ms. Ruth Slagle, of 27 South Shore Drive stated she did not enjoy being at the hearing.  Mr. Holley should have to follow the Ordinances.  The porch is within five feet of the property line.  Her first concern is the hindrance of snow removal in her driveway and does not want to damage the porch with a snowplow.  Her second concern is that she chooses to live on the Island for privacy, a porch is a gathering place and an encroachment on her privacy.

Mr. Wyman asked for testimony that was neutral or informational. There was none.  The public portion of the meeting was closed.

Mr. Holley stated he didn't come with legal representation.  He stated he did proceed following all the rules, a survey was not available until after the porch was built.  He had no intention to deceive.  He hopes to be a good neighbor with Mrs. Slagle.

Mr. Wyman asked if the porch was complete and when construction began.

Mr. Holley stated the construction began the week of September 25, 2002.  He received a stop work order in October. He has spent several days at the registry and the property lines are difficult to define on the Island without surveys.

Mr. Wyman stated the Board is aware of the difficulties on the Island, but must enforce the Ordinance as it is adopted today.

Mr. Holley stated the construction of the porch prevents water in the basement.  It would be a hardship to not have the porch.

Mr. Wyman  stated the Board had ruled out replacement as an option so the application must meet the hardship criteria in Section 104.138.

The Board reviewed the Undue Hardship criteria with the following findings:

.138    Undue Hardship: for any sign or height variance or for any structure that is located on a lot that is in whole or in part in a shoreland area, undue hardship shall mean:

1.      The land in question cannot yield a reasonable return unless a variance is granted;
        The Board did not find this requirement to be satisfied.

        The Board did not find this requirement to be satisfied.

3.      The granting of a variance will not alter the essential character of the locality;
        The Board did not find this requirement to be satisfied.

        The Board did not find this requirement to be satisfied.

Mr. Turner stated it is abundantly clear short of being able to consider re-construction, the undue hardship criteria for the shoreland zone cannot be met.  It is an agonizing situation the improvement is architecturally pleasing, but the purpose of the undue hardship is to protect the shoreland zone.  It would be a shame to be forced to tear down the porch.

Mr. Manahan moved to grant Mr. Holley a variance to of twenty-five (25) feet from the thirty (30) foot side setback requirement for a porch on a single family dwelling at 23 South Shore Drive, Tax Assessor Map I01, Lot 25 in the Island Residential / Limited Residential Shoreland overlay districts.

Mr. Black seconded.                                 VOTE:  0 in favor
                                                           Opposed - Unanimous

2.      Variance                                   J. Samuel Hunter
                                                  28 Hamilton Hotel Road
                                                  Chebeague Island, ME
                                                  Tax Assessor Map I04, Lot 118

Mr. Hunter withdrew his application.

3.      Variance                                   Martin Meier, agent for
                                                  Gregory Shapiro
                                                  10 Island View Drive
                                                  Cumberland Foreside, ME 04110
                                                  Tax Assessor Map U06B, Lot 1

Ms. McPheters presented background information as follows: Martin Meier, agent for Gregory Shapiro, requests variances of five (5) feet from the thirty (30) foot side and twenty (20) feet from the sixty-five (65) foot combined side setback requirements for an addition to a single family dwelling at 10 Island View Drive on Map U06B Lot 1 in the Low Density Residential (LDR) District.

The applicant is requesting approval for a two-story addition to accommodate a two-car garage, guest bedroom, bathroom, mudroom and utility room.  The applicant has been asked to provide a second floor plan and elevation drawings for review.
The variance request must comply with the practical difficulty criteria in Section 104.97 of the Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Manahan stated his law firm has worked for Mr. Shapiro and asked to be recused.

Mr. Wyman stated there must be a unanimous vote by three members.  The Board is reduced and one member has been recused, the applicant would have the option to table for a larger number of Board members to be present.

Mr. Shapiro stated he would continue with his petition.

Ms. McPheters presented the Board with copies of the elevation.  There were no dimensions on the drawing.

Mr. Martin, agent for Mr. Shapiro stated the house is an existing two-bedroom house with a second floor.  None of the renovations on the second floor are part of the variance request.  The house is located on the smallest lot in the neighborhood, prior to the subdivision, which was approved in 1967.  There is a steep bank at the rear of the house, which prevents expansion in that area.  The addition will bring the house up to the standards of the neighborhood.  The lot was created prior to the current zoning.

Mr. Wyman asked about the five-foot difference.

Mr. Martin stated the front corner meets the thirty-foot setback, the angle prevents meeting the combined setback requirements.

Mr. Black asked how far out the building extended with the combined setbacks.

Ms. McPheters stated the cumulative setback is sixty-five feet, the existing side is twenty feet, and the other side must be forty-five feet.

Mr. Black asked what economic injury would be suffered if the applicant did not receive the variance.

Mr. Meier stated the owner would be forced to purchase another property, which would be substantially more money.

Mr. Black asked if there would be any other option than re-locate.

Mr. Meier stated no.

Mr. Black asked about the slope at the rear of the house.

Mr. Meier reviewed the plans and stated the drainage is only a few feet beyond the deck, and the bank is very steep.

Mr. Wyman asked if any safety issues existed.

Mr. Meier stated no, however the addition would improve the approach to the garage.

Mr. Wyman asked if there was truly no other alternative.

Mr. Meier stated the back is at an angle the only other space would be right up against the steep bank, and it would be a detriment to lose the rear yard.

Mr. Shapiro, owner stated they have worked very hard to build within the current building envelope, however to do so would not be aesthetically appropriate for the neighborhood.  They have designed an attractive conservative practical addition.

Mr. Meier stated the addition area is an existing paved driveway.

Mr. Black asked the purpose of the addition.

Mr. Meier stated a guest bedroom, family room and garage.

Mr. Wyman asked for testimony from the public in support of the application.  There was none.  Mr. Wyman asked for testimony that was in opposition, neutral or informational.

Mr. Lawrence Newman, of 1 Island View Drive, Yarmouth stated he had a difficult time with granting a variance merely for convenience.  He thought the applicant had alternatives available with minimal impact.

Mr. Meier stated it is the cumulative setback they have a problem meeting.

Mr. Wyman stated if the applicant was denied the Board could only reconsider with a plan that was significantly different.  

Ms. McPheters stated the Board has the option to reconsider if there is significant change to the proposal.

Mr. Wyman asked he applicant if he would like to request to be tabled to see if there were some other possibilities with the configuration of the building.

Mr. Shapiro, applicant stated they did not intend to have to ask for a variance, it was a miscommunication on the combined setback requirement.

Mr. Turner moved to table the application of Martin Meier, agent for Gregory Shapiro for variances of five (5) feet from the thirty (30) foot side and twenty (20) feet from the sixty-five foot combined side setback requirements for an addition to a single family dwelling at 10 Island View Drive, Tax Assessor Map U06B, Lot 1.  The application will be re-heard at the January 9, 2003 meeting.

Mr. Black seconded.                                 Vote:  3 in favor
                                                         Opposed none

4.      Variance                                   Jeannette J. Sowles
                                                  11 Ebb Tide Drive
                                                  Cumberland Foreside, ME
                                                  Tax Assessor Map U06B, Lot 9

Ms. McPheters presented background information as follows: Jeannette J. Sowles requests a variance of five (5) feet from the thirty (30) foot side setback requirement for an addition to a single family dwelling at 11 Ebb Tide Drive on Map U06B Lot 9 in the Low Density Residential/Limited Residential Shoreland Overlay (LDR/LR) Districts.

The applicant is requesting approval for an addition built in 1992.  A permit was issued on September 10, 1992 with notations that the setback must be thirty (30) feet not twenty-five (25) feet as proposed.  The violation was brought to our attention due to a property transfer closing.  The applicant is currently the former owner but was required to pursue a variance due to a sizable escrow account.

The variance request must comply with the criteria in Section 104.138.

Mr. Manahan asked to be recused the applicant had been represented by his office.  Mr. Wyman asked the applicant if they wished to be tabled to be heard by more than three Board members.

Ms. Sowles asked to have her application considered.

Mr. Koch, a former neighbor of Ms. Sowles stated she had moved to Crestwood Drive. Mr. Koch stated he could see the garage and shed in question from his property.  The garden shed is attached to the garage and is 10 high x 10 x 12.  The shed allowed items stored outside to be put inside.  Ms. Sowles ex-husband built the shed ten years ago.  He used a tape and assumed the measurements were correct.  Ms. Sowles had sold the house and had to place $10,000.00 in an escrow account until she receives the variance.  If she does not receive the variance she would lose $10,000.00.  She sold the house at 60% of the assessed value.

Mr. Wyman asked if the building permit was granted.

Ms. McPheters stated yes in 1992, it appeared the original application showed a setback of twenty-five feet and was changed to thirty feet after review and discussion with the owner.

Mr. Wyman asked if it was feasible to take five feet off from the shed.

Mr. Koch stated the purchaser wants to maintain the roofline and insists on having the shed.

Ms. Lisa Moss, an abutter stated she has no objections to the shed.  The new owner wants to reduce the height of the garage roof to that of the shed.

Mr. Wyman asked for testimony that was in opposition, neutral or informational.  There was none.  The public portion of the meeting was closed.  

Mr. Turner stated this was a situation where the variance is deminimus and would have no negative effect on the neighborhood.
Mr. Turner reviewed the variance criteria.
1.  The logical testimony states Ms. Sowles sold her property at 60% of assessed value it would add further injury making a reasonable return impossible.
2.  The circumstances are unique that the Town has not taken any action on the setback violation.  The Board must keep the whole Ordinance, which is to protect individual landowners.  The request is deminimus a typographical error.
3.  The granting of the variance will not alter the locality.

Mr. Black stated he was sympathetic, however the Board had dealt with the same issue previously this evening.  The violation was an action of the previous owner.

Mrs. Sowles stated she remembered when they received the building permit.  They thought they were in compliance with procedures at the time.  Her property was listed for sale at $950,000 close to the newly assessed value.  The price was reduced to $849,000 for six months.  When the price was reduced to $649,000 it sold for $600,000 within a week.  The second offer was for $550,000.  The buyer does not want the shed moved.  We found out it was not in compliance the night prior to closing.

Mr. Wyman stated the argument was compelling, the shed was built over ten years ago, and Mr. Sowles attempted to follow the appropriate codes, he was not a professional builder.  His preference would be to remove five feet from the shed.

Mr. Turner stated Class D surveys come up a number of times.  It is usually the obligation of the owner to know additions and building footprints are in the right place.  Telling an owner to remove a corner of a house is a huge expense.  People make mistakes; this is a deminimus situation where compassion and flexibility make sense.  A five-foot encroachment of a shed is not a reason to lose sleep tonight, and he was not going to contribute the Ms. Sowles hardship.

The Board reviewed the undue hardship variance criteria with the following findings:

A.      The land in question cannot yield a reasonable return unless a variance is granted:
        The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.
D.      The hardship is not the result of action taken by the applicant or a prior owner.
        [Amended  effective 10/17/94]
        The Board did not find this requirement to be satisfied.

Mr. Turner moved to grant a variance of five (5) feet from the thirty (30 foot side setback requirement for an addition to a single family dwelling at 11 Ebb Tide Drive, Tax Assessor Map U06B, Lot 9 in the Low Density Residential / Limited Residential Shoreland Overlay district.

Mr. Black seconded.                                 VOTE:  2 in favor (Wyman, Turner)
                                                           1 opposed (Black)

5.      Variance                                   Donald and Cynthia Rawnsley
                                                  382 Main Street
                                                  Cumberland, ME 04021
                                                  Tax Assessor Map U14A, Lot 9
                                                  Low Density Residential district

Ms. McPheters presented background information as follows: Donald and Cynthia Rawnsley request a variance of five (5) feet from the forty (40) foot rear setback requirement for an addition to a single family dwelling at 382 Main Street on Map U14A Lot 9 in the Medium Density Residential/Setback Overlay 2 (MDR/SO2) Districts.

The applicants are requesting approval of an eighteen- (18) foot by thirty-seven (37) foot addition to the rear of their existing home.

The variance request must comply with practical difficulty definition in Section 104.97.

Mr. Donald Rawnsley, applicant stated he has been a life long resident of Cumberland.  They would like to build a family room and deck addition.  They have considered buying land, which is very expensive.  He wants to stay close to the center of Town he has been an active member of the Fire Department for forty-seven years, and needs to be less than a mile from the station.  They have six grown children and their house has many small rooms they would like a large room for family gatherings.  He was not aware of the setback.  His property abuts wooded area of the property of Elaine Clark on Sawyer Lane.  The addition would not be visible to neighbors.

Mr. Wyman asked how he would suffer significant economic injury if he couldnt add a family room.

Mr. Rawnsley stated he could not afford to build elsewhere.

Mr. Wyman asked if the addition could be reduced by five feet.

Mr. Rawnsley stated it was not worthwhile to build a long narrow room.

Mr. Manahan asked if they could build the addition on the side.

Mr. Rawnsley stated there are no windows on the back.  The other side would block existing windows to the house.

Mr. Manahan asked how much money would it cost to move windows to the backside.

Ms. Rawnsley stated one side of the house had the kitchen, which would have to be re-modeled to add a family room.  In the back they could have a gas fireplace with a second flu added to the chimney.

Mr. Black asked the front setback.

Ms. McPheters stated thirty-five feet.

Ms. McPheters stated a previous permit shows a storage shed fifteen feet from the side setback.

Mr. Black asked if the door was towards Sawyer Lane.

Mr. Rawnsley stated no, he had four doors, two on the front Main Street, and two doors for the mudroom and one on the backside of the house.

Mr. Wyman asked for testimony from the public in support of the application.  There was none.  He asked for testimony that was in opposition, neutral or informational.  There was none.  The public portion of the meeting was closed.

Mr. Manahan stated the Board is currently considering language to clarify the ambiguity in the Ordinance as to the definitions of front and rear.  The Rawnsleys property is on the corner of Sawyer Lane and Main Street and has two front setbacks.  The Clark side could be defined as a side and therefore not require a variance.

Mr. Manahan moved to find that the lot line of Donald and Cynthia Rawnsley, Tax Assessor Map U14A, Lot 9 opposite Main Street a side lot line and a variance was not required.

Mr. Black seconded.                                 VOTE:  Unanimous


6.      Variance                                   Neil and Jacqueline Rouda      
                                                  1 Hunter Way
                                                  Cumberland, ME 04021
                                                  Tax Assessor Map R08A, Lot 68C
                                                  Rural Residential 2 district

Ms. McPheters presented background information as follows: Neil and Jacqueline Rouda request a variance of twenty (20) feet from the seventy-five (75) foot rear setback requirement for an addition to a single family dwelling at 1 Hunter Way on Map R08A Lot 68C in the Rural Residential 2 (RR2) District.

The applicants are requesting approval of a garage addition at their existing home.   The applicants plan to convert the current garage into a family room.

The variance request must comply with the practical difficulty definition in Section 104.97.

Mr. Rouda, applicant stated the house was built in the 1980s with 2.5 bedrooms, which has been renovated to a three-bedroom home.  Mr. Rouda reviewed the triangular shape of his lot and his proposal for adding a garage.  Mr. Rouda presented letters from his neighbors who do object to his request.

Mr. Turner asked the distance of the nearest structure.

Mr. Rouda stated Glenwood a mile away.

Mr. Wyman asked for testimony from the public in support of the application.  
Mr. Rouda presented the Board with three letters of support from abutters stating they have no objection to the addition proposed by the Roudas.  The abutters were Raymond Seekins, 161 Blanchard Road, Kristina and Manning Morrill, 6 Fox Run Drive and Dean Dakin, 14 Fox Run Drive.

He asked for testimony that was in opposition, neutral or informational.  There was none.  The public portion of the meeting was closed.                      

Mr. Turner stated he was familiar with the twelve-lot subdivision.  It was originally a sandpit, the road is crescent shaped and most of the dwellings are not visible from the road.

Mr. Wyman asked why the addition could not be added to the back of the garage.

Mr. Rouda stated that because of the shape of his lot, the setback would be greater.

Mr. Manahan asked why the addition could not be added to the other side of the house.

Mr. Rouda stated the upstairs addition would have a master bedroom and an art studio, conceivably they might be able to locate the addition on that side, the option has not been considered.

Mr. Manahan stated the Ordinance states a variance cant be granted if there is any other feasible alternative.

Mr. Rouda stated it would be more expensive probably  $10,000 to $20,000 and they would lose the windows in the living room.

Mr. Manahan asked if they were not able to build the addition, what financial injury would be incurred.

Mr. Rouda stated the location of the garage in the front of the house would create a loss of value in the neighborhood, and a non-attached garage is more difficult to sell.  They would have to sell the house, which is too small.  

Mr. Manahan asked if they had evidence that the cost of buying a larger house would be significantly more than adding an addition.

Mr. Rouda stated there was not any housing comparable for the cost of the addition.

Mr. Black asked about previous additions to the property.

Mr. Rouda stated the house was built as a salt box with an attached breezeway and garage.  Approximately three to four years ago a second floor was added to the breezeway.

Ms. McPheters stated the garage was added in June of 1998 and the renovation was done in October 1998.

Mr. Manahan asked if the 1986 addition was placed within the setback.

Mr. Rouda stated yes by eleven feet.

Mr. Manahan asked if the setbacks were the same when the garage was built as they are today.

Ms. McPheters stated she could make a judgement call depending on the size of the violation and age she could issue a no action letter.

Mr. turner stated there might be a feasible but not practical alternative.  The practical difficulty standards were adopted to ease the burden of undue hardship.  This situation is a good test of how the practical difficulty was meant to be applied.

Mr. Rouda stated it would be difficult to imagine the property as valuable with a detached garage in the front of the lot.

Mr. Wyman reviewed the practical difficulty criteria.
Practical difficulty shall mean that the strict application of the ordinance to the property precludes the ability of the petitioner to pursue a use permitted in the zoning district in which the property is located and results in significant economic injury to the petitioner.

        
D.      No other feasible alternative to a variance is available to the petitioner;
Mr. Manahan questioned criteria C & D, the action was taken as a result of the applicant or prior owner, and that no other feasible alternative was available.

The Board asked Ms. McPheters if the setback requirements had changed since the original building.

Ms. McPheters stated the setbacks are the same.

Mr. Black questioned criteria D, no other feasible alternative.

Mr. Turner stated a feasible alternative might not be practical due to cost or location.

Mr. Wyman stated that if the garage was built on the front of the lot it might produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood.

Mr. Manahan stated the standard is subjective and it is difficult to determine economic injury.

Mr. Wyman stated the standard does not mandate financial.

        The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.
D.      No other feasible alternative to a variance is available to the petitioner;

Mr. Manahan moved to grant a variance of twenty (20) feet from the seventy-five (75) foot rear setback requirement for an addition to a single family dwelling at 1 Hunter Way, Tax Assessor Map R08A, Lot 68C in the Rural Residential 2 district.

The Board discussed the term of significant economic injury, and how they continue to struggle with the language.  

Administrative Matters

1.      Minutes of November 4, 2002
Mr. Manahan moved to approve the minutes of the November 4, 2002 meeting.

Mr. Black seconded.                                 VOTE:  Unanimous

2.      Update on Ordinance Changes

Mr. Manahan moved to forward the proposed Ordinance changes to Sections 421, 501.1 and Sections 104 Definitions to the Planning Board for a public hearing.

Mr. Black seconded.                                 VOTE:  Unanimous

3.      Rules of Procedure

Mr. Wyman moved to approve the proposed Rules of Procedure.
Mr. Turner seconded.                                VOTE:  Unanimous

4.      Discussion on significant economic injury
This item was tabled.

Mr. Black moved to adjourn at 10:30 p.m.
Mr. Turner seconded.                                VOTE:  Unanimous

Adjournment 10:30 p.m.

A TRUE COPY ATTEST:



__________________________                    ______________________
R. Scott Wyman, Board Chair                   Pam Bosarge, Board Clerk