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

The meeting was called to order at 7:00 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.

Hearings and Presentations:

1.      Special Exception                           Richard and Carol Jensen
                                                  283 Range Road
                                                  Cumberland, ME 04021
                                                  Tax Assessor Map U16, Lot 6
                                                  Local Business district

Ms. McPheters presented background information as follows: Richard and Carol Jensen request a special exception for a duplex at 283 Range Road on Map U16 Lot 6 in the Local Business (LB) District.

The applicants are requesting approval of a two-family dwelling on a portion of their six-acre lot.  Duplex dwellings are permitted by special exception in accordance with the zoning ordinance amendment effective December 25, 2002.

The special exception request must comply with the Special Exception Criteria in Sections 603.2.3. and 603.2.7 of the zoning ordinance.

Mr. Jensen, applicant reviewed his application and stated he would like to build a duplex for his son on his property at 283 Range Road.  The duplex would be approximately 160 feet back from Route 100.

Mr. Wyman asked if he was requesting to subdivide his property.

Mr. Jensen stated no, at this time, he would leave it as one parcel.  In the future financing may require him to do so.  

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. John Raeke, of 229 Range Road asked about the new zoning amendment voiced concern regarding duplexes in the rural area of Range Road.  

The public portion of the meeting was closed.

The Board then reviewed the Special Exception standards, Section 603.2.3 with the following findings:

.1      The proposed use will not create hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic on the roads and sidewalks serving the proposed use as determined by the size and condition of such roads and sidewalks, lighting, drainage, intensity of use by both pedestrians and vehicles and the visibility afforded to pedestrians and the operators of motor vehicles;
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.
.2      The proposed use will not cause water pollution, sedimentation, erosion, contaminate any water supply nor reduce the capacity of the land to hold water so that a dangerous, aesthetically unpleasant, or unhealthy condition may result;
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.
.3      The proposed use will not create unhealthful conditions because of smoke, dust, or other airborne contaminants;
 The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.
 .4     The proposed use will be compatible with the uses that are adjacent to and neighboring the proposed location, as measured in terms of its physical size, intensity of use, visual impact, and proximity to other structures and the scale and bulk of any new structures for the proposed use shall be compatible with structures existing or permitted to be constructed on neighboring properties;

Mr. Kendall asked if there were plans for the duplex.

Mr. Jensen showed the Board his duplex plans.

Mr. Kendall asked Mr. Jensen if he would like to add the drawing as part of his application, and confirm that the dwelling will be as depicted.

Mr. Jensen stated yes.

Mr. Wyman asked if anyone from the public would like to see the plans.

Mr. Raeke viewed the house plans.

Mr. Turner stated the lots across the street have been proposed for commercial development.  A special exception use is tantamount to a permitted use.
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

.5      The proposed use will not create nuisances to neighboring properties because of odors, fumes, glare, hours of operation, noise, vibration or fire hazard or restrict access of light and air to neighboring properties;
 The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.
.6      The proposed location for the use has no peculiar physical characteristics due to its size, shape, topography, or soils which will create or aggravate adverse environmental impacts on surrounding properties;
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.
.7      The proposed use has no unusual characteristics atypical of the generic use which proposed use will depreciate the economic value of surrounding properties;
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.
.8      If located in a shoreland zone, the proposed use (1) will not result in damage to spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, bird and other wildlife habitat; (ii) will conserve shoreland vegetation; (iii) will conserve visual points of access to waters as viewed from public facilities; (iv) will conserve actual points of access to waters; (v) will conserve natural beauty and (vi) will avoid problems associated with flood plain development and use.  [Amended, effective 12/2/86]
The Board determined the property is not in a shoreland zone.

In addition, Section 603.2.7 was reviewed with the following findings.

In addition to the standards contained in Section 603.2.3, all special exceptions must conform with the performance standards set forth herein.  No use already established on the date of adoption of this ordinance shall be so altered or modified as to conflict with or, if already in conflict with, to further conflict with these performance standards.

.1      The volume of sound, measured by a sound level meter and frequency weighting network (manufactured according the standards prescribed by the American Standards Association), inherently and recurrently generated shall not exceed a maximum of 60 decibels at lot boundaries, excepting air raid sirens and similar warning devices;
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.
.2      Vibration inherently and recurrently generated shall not exceed a peak particle velocity of .01 inches per second at lot boundaries;
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.
.3      No materials or wastes shall be deposited on any lot in such form or manner that they may be transferred beyond the lot boundaries by regularly recurring natural causes or forces, and all materials which cause fumes or dust, constitute a fire hazard, or are edible or otherwise attractive to rodents or insects if stored out-of-doors shall be in closed containers;
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.
.4      The emission of noxious, odorous matter across lot boundaries in such quantities as to be offensive to persons of ordinary sensibilities is prohibited; and
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.
.5      No discharge into any private sewage disposal system, or stream or into the ground of any materials in such nature or at such temperature as to contaminate any water supply or otherwise cause the emission of dangerous or unhealthful elements is permitted, and no accumulation of solid waste conducive to the breeding of rodents or insects shall be allowed.  [Amended, effective 12/2/86]
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

Mr. Kendall moved to grant a special exception to Richard and Carol Jensen for a duplex dwelling at 283 Range Road, Tax Assessor Map U16, Lot 6 in the Local Business district.

Mr. Manahan seconded.                        VOTE:  Unanimous

2.      Special Exception                           Peter and Kerry Volk
                                                  21 Wild Way
                                                  Cumberland, Maine
                                                  Tax Assessor Map U09, Lot 5C
                                                  Rural Residential 1 district

Ms. McPheters presented background information as follows: Peter, Jr. and Kerry Volk request a special exception for an accessory apartment at 21 Wild Way on Map U09 Lot 5C in the Rural Residential 1 (RR1) District.

The applicants are requesting approval for an apartment over a proposed attached garage.  The applicants have provided a floor plan for the proposed apartment.  The total living area is 3,032 square feet.  The proposed square footage of the apartment is calculated as 1,145 square feet, which is within the 40% allowed by ordinance.

Assessing records indicate that the current three-bedroom home is connected to an existing septic system.   Dick Peterson, Licensed Plumbing Inspector, has allowed a single bedroom to be added to existing systems with the understanding that the system would need to be replaced if a failure occurred.

The Board will need to determine that the use meets the criteria in Sections 407.1 (Accessory Apartment), 603.2.3 and 6032.27 of the Cumberland Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Kerry Volk, applicant stated they are proposing to build a 3 bay garage with an accessory apartment for her Father.  The lot is four acres and meets code.  The apartment will be one bedroom.  Her Father had a liver transplant a year ago and they would like to have him closer for medical reasons.

Mr. Wyman asked about entrance.

Ms. Volk stated the only entrance would be from inside the garage.

Mr. Wyman asked if there would be any decking above the garage.

Ms. Volk stated not at this time, if at a later time they might install an enclosed stair glide.

Mr. Turner asked about the water and septic.

Ms. Volk stated they have town water and would expand the septic system if necessary.

Mr. Wyman asked for testimony from the public in support of the application.

Mr. Benjamin Marcus, of 29 Wild Way stated he was an immediate neighbor and he would also be speaking for Mr. Bob Vail, of 16 Wild Way who was at a school board meeting.  He stated they supported the request as an in-law apartment for an immediate family member.

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

Mr. Manahan asked the applicant if they would agree to the accessory apartment use limited to family only.

Ms. Volk stated yes.  

Ms. McPheters stated she did receive a call from Mr. Lockhart, of 14 Wild Way, who reviewed the application as was in support of the request as an in-law apartment.

Mr. Copp asked if the Board had the authority to restrict an applicant.

Mr. Turner stated it would be appropriate to ask the applicant if she were willing to have the restriction.  When a family member is unable to occupy the apartment what would happen.

Ms. Volk stated she was requesting the apartment for her father, and didn't know about future use.

Mr. Kendall stated the ordinance does not require the Board to restrict the use.
Mr. Martin stated if the applicant was willing to restrict the use, but it might not be the wisest thing to do.

Mr. Manahan stated the applicant could come back before the Board to have the restriction removed.

Mr. Wyman asked if there had been a situation where the apartment was limited to use by a family member only.

Ms. McPheters stated not in her tenure, but in the past records.

Mr. Marcus, of 29 Wild Way stated he would agree that the applicant could come back in the future to remove the restriction.

Mr. Wyman asked the reason for his opposition if not for a family member.

Mr. Marcus stated he felt it would alter the character of the neighborhood.

Mr. Wyman asked if there were deed restrictions or covenants in the subdivision approval.

Mr. Marcus stated the lot was not part of the subdivision.

Mr. Manahan stated the applicant had agreed with the restriction to keep harmony in the neighborhood.

Mr. Turner stated it would be appropriate to restrict the use as long as the applicant was allowed to return to the Board.

Mr. Martin asked if the applicant understood the restriction, and was she willing to amend her application.

Ms. Volk stated yes.

Mr. Manahan moved to grant a special exception to Peter and Kerry Volk for an accessory apartment at 21 Wild Way, Tax Assessor Map U09, Lot 5C in the Rural Residential 1 district.  The approval is limited to residence of family members only.

Mr. Copp seconded.                           VOTE:  Unanimous

3.      Special Exception                    The Homeless Animal Rescue Team
                                           Gray Road
                                           Tax Assessor Map U16, Lot 7B
                                           Local Business District

Ms. McPheters presented background information as follows: The Homeless Animal Rescue Team of Maine, Inc. request a special exception for a boarding kennel at Gray Road on Map U16 Lot 7B in the Local Business (LB) District.

The applicant is requesting approval for a boarding kennel use in a proposed building to be located on the property.   Deed and authorization documentation has been requested of the applicant.  Site plan review and approval by the Planning Board will be required for the project.

The special exception request must comply with the in Sections 603.2.3. and 603.2.7 of the Zoning Ordinance.

Ms. Beth  DeSwarte, Director of the Board introduced herself, and Marty Jensen, President and Lance Dow, Board Member.

Ms. DeSwarte gave an overview the organization and proposal.  The H.A.R.T. organization is currently operating at 145 Greely Road since 1999.  The have approximately 85 cats in residence; 70 at the shelter and 15 at foster home volunteers.  Each year HART rescues and finds new owners for approximately 25 to 50 cats.  The Shelter operates as a 501.C Non-Profit Organization.  Approved applicants are screened and pay an adoption fee to H.A.R.T.  The organization provides humane animal education within the community and provides low-cost spay-neutering assistance to area residents.  The H.A.R.T. organization is a member of many animal advocacy organizations including: the American Humane Association, the Maine Federation of Humane Societies, the American Partnership for Pets, and works closely with Pets 911 and petfinder.com and has submitted an application for membership to the New England Federation of Humane Societies.

The H.A.R.T. shelter would like to build a shelter building divided into rooms to facilitate cat housing quarters, a laundry room, wash room, and storage room.

An office area would be located in within the building for the purposes of maintaining business records.
A meeting room would be established within the shelter building for H.A.R.T. business meetings, to host educational workshops on animal care for area residents and to greet and interview potential cat owners/adopters.
There would be a small retail store within the building for purposes of selling to the local community pet supplies including food, litter, crates/cages, bedding, toys and related sundries.  Income would be used for the sole purpose of operating the cat shelter.

There would be a bathroom for use by volunteers and visitors.

The shelter is currently open to visitors by appointment only.  They anticipate being open to the public approximately 1 day per week within the first year, this may be expanded thereafter.

Parking and Traffic - Volunteers would visit the shelter daily at a rate of approximately 6 cars per day for purposes of being open to the public and care of the animals.  H.A.R.T. periodically holds business meetings in which there would be 15 vehicles at the shelter.

Refuse - Solid waste associated with the shelter would be contained and collected in a dumpster properly located at the back of the building.  HART contracts with a local waste disposal company to empty the dumpster on a scheduled basis.  Liquid waste in the septic system will only include waste from the washroom and bathroom.

Mr. Wyman asked about licensing.

Ms. Jensen stated the State inspects the facility once a year.  They maintain vet records and check for cleanliness etc.  They do not have a vet on site they work with three Animal Emergency in Portland, and the vet in Gray-New Gloucester on Route 100.

Mr. Wyman asked how many cats the shelter would have.

Ms. Jensen stated they currently have eighty cats, with seventy in residence and fifteen in foster care.

Mr. Wyman asked the maximum capacity under licensure.

Ms. Jensen stated the founder of H.A.R.T. moved in 1999 and the shelter had 158 cats, the license does not limit the number of cats.  She expected that 100 would be the maximum cats, 158 cats are too many to handle, and the number will probably be between 80 and 85 cats.  The Shelter adopts out as many cats as possible.  They have in the past had a ferret, guinea pig, and two jersey cows.  The Shelter does not accept dogs.

Mr. Wyman asked how many employees the Shelter had.

Ms. Jensen stated they have volunteers and the maximum at the facility would be six.  There would be no overnight volunteers.

Mr. Manahan reviewed the Ordinance, which defines boarding kennel as a place where more than three dogs or other pets are kept for a fee&

Ms. Jensen stated the Shelter meet the criteria because they own the pets and charge an adoption fee.

Ms. McPheters stated she had talked with Natalie Burns, the town attorney who agreed with the determination that H.A.R.T. owns the cats and keeps them for a future owner.

Mr. Wyman asked how the Shelter currently exists in Town.

Ms. Jensen stated Aileen Smith, of 145 Greely Road moved into Town in July of 1997 and brought with her 147 cats.  She received a private kennel status from the Town.  She moved in 1999 and left 158 cats.  She was going to exterminate the cats, but the Board determined that not acceptable and has been looking for a new location.  The State Humane Agent inspected the Shelter in December 2001.

Mr. Turner asked if the Ordinance addressed how may cats could be in one house.

Ms. Jensen said she asked Stanley Page, the previous Animal Control officer that question and he said there was no rule limiting the number of cats in one 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.

Mr. Claude Guyot, of 284 Range Road stated he was in favor of cats, but not barking dogs.

Mr. Richard Jensen, of 283 Range Road stated he would not be in favor of dogs.  He asked if there would be outside cages.

The public portion of the meeting was closed.

Ms. Jensen stated they have a conceptual drawing at this time, there may be a pen if the setback allow.  The cats would not be loose or out at night, there will be no dogs.

Mr. Dow confirmed the drawing was conceptual at this time.

Mr. Wyman asked if there was a time deadline on the purchase and sale agreement.

Ms. DeSwarte stated they had 120 days to have approvals from the Town.

Mr. Wyman voiced concern with interpretation of the application and would prefer more detail.  He was in favor of tabling the application.

Mr. Turner agreed the cause is very worthwhile, and the Board needed to figure out how the request fit the Ordinance.

Mr. Wyman asked about waste.

Ms. Jensen stated there would be an air exchange system and they have a contract with a local waste disposal company to empty the closed dumpster every two weeks.  Noise is not an issue.  The cats have loose housing, there are separate rooms for sick cages, and mothers with kittens, and the general population.

Mr. Manahan stated the use would be limited to cats and the definition of a boarding refers to dogs.  Site Plan would give extensive review.  He was in favor of going forward tonight with approval.

Ms. McPheters stated the Site Plan Review would cover similar issues, noise, lighting, traffic, waste disposal, buffering etc.

Mr. Copp asked about the interior would the floors be concrete.

Mr. Dow said there would be a slab with radiant heat the floor would be sealed and there would be plastic on the walls.

The Board then reviewed the special exception standards with the following findings:

.1      The proposed use will not create hazards to vehicular or pedestrian traffic on the roads and sidewalks serving the proposed use as determined by the size and condition of such roads and sidewalks, lighting, drainage, intensity of use by both pedestrians and vehicles and the visibility afforded to pedestrians and the operators of motor vehicles;
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.
.2      The proposed use will not cause water pollution, sedimentation, erosion, contaminate any water supply nor reduce the capacity of the land to hold water so that a dangerous, aesthetically unpleasant, or unhealthy condition may result;
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.
.3      The proposed use will not create unhealthful conditions because of smoke, dust, or other airborne contaminants;
 The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.
 .4     The proposed use will be compatible with the uses that are adjacent to and neighboring the proposed location, as measured in terms of its physical size, intensity of use, visual impact, and proximity to other structures and the scale and bulk of any new structures for the proposed use shall be compatible with structures existing or permitted to be constructed on neighboring properties;
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.
.5      The proposed use will not create nuisances to neighboring properties because of odors, fumes, glare, hours of operation, noise, vibration or fire hazard or restrict access of light and air to neighboring properties;
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.
.6      The proposed location for the use has no peculiar physical characteristics due to its size, shape, topography, or soils which will create or aggravate adverse environmental impacts on surrounding properties;
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.
.7      The proposed use has no unusual characteristics atypical of the generic use which proposed use will depreciate the economic value of surrounding properties;
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.
.8      If located in a shoreland zone, the proposed use (1) will not result in damage to spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, bird and other wildlife habitat; (ii) will conserve shoreland vegetation; (iii) will conserve visual points of access to waters as viewed from public facilities; (iv) will conserve actual points of access to waters; (v) will conserve natural beauty and (vi) will avoid problems associated with flood plain development and use.  [Amended, effective 12/2/86]
The Board determined the property is not in a shoreland zone.

In addition, Section 603.2.7 was reviewed with the following findings.

In addition to the standards contained in Section 603.2.3, all special exceptions must conform to the performance standards set forth herein.  No use already established on the date of adoption of this ordinance shall be so altered or modified as to conflict with or, if already in conflict with, to further conflict with these performance standards.

.1      The volume of sound, measured by a sound level meter and frequency weighting network (manufactured according the standards prescribed by the American Standards Association), inherently and recurrently generated shall not exceed a maximum of 60 decibels at lot boundaries, excepting air raid sirens and similar warning devices;
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.
.2      Vibration inherently and recurrently generated shall not exceed a peak particle velocity of .01 inches per second at lot boundaries;
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.
.3      No materials or wastes shall be deposited on any lot in such form or manner that they may be transferred beyond the lot boundaries by regularly recurring natural causes or forces, and all materials which cause fumes or dust, constitute a fire hazard, or are edible or otherwise attractive to rodents or insects if stored out-of-doors shall be in closed containers;
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.
.4      The emission of noxious, odorous matter across lot boundaries in such quantities as to be offensive to persons of ordinary sensibilities is prohibited; and
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.
.5      No discharge into any private sewage disposal system, or stream or into the ground of any materials in such nature or at such temperature as to contaminate any water supply or otherwise cause the emission of dangerous or unhealthful elements is permitted, and no accumulation of solid waste conducive to the breeding of rodents or insects shall be allowed.  [Amended, effective 12/2/86]
The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

Mr. Manahan moved to grant a special exception to the Homeless Animal Rescue Team of Maine, Inc. for a boarding kennel at Gray Road, Tax Assessor Map U16, Lot 7B in the Local Business district.  The Board specified the kennel was not to be used for dogs.

Mr. Martin seconded.                                VOTE:  Unanimous

4.      Variance                                   Martin Meier, agent
                                                  Gregory Shapiro
                                                  10 Island View Drive
                                                  Tax Assessor Map U06B, Lot 1
                                                  Low Density Residential district

Ms. McPheters presented background information as follows: Martin Meier, agent for Gregory Shapiro, requests a variance of fifteen (15) feet from the sixty-five (65) foot combined side setback requirement 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.

This application was tabled at the December 12, 2002 meeting.  The applicant has revised the building layout to request a combined setback variance only.  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 provided a second floor plan and elevation drawings for review.  She gave the Board copies of a plot plan drawn by an abutter.

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

Mr. Meier stated Mr. Shapiro's lot is the smallest in the neighborhood.  His property abuts Yarmouth.  Mr. Shapiro cant realize the true value of property without the addition, which would cause a hardship.  He asked the purpose of the combined setback.

Ms. McPheters stated she didn't have the reason the combined setback was instituted, it does provide more open space.

Mr. Meier stated on one side there is a strip of land and property abuts the Town line, the next building is over 100 feet away.  He showed the existing house with the combined setbacks and the proposed stakes for a surveyor.

Ms. McPheters asked if it was his intention for a surveyor to lay out the building.

Mr. Meier stated that yes a surveyor would set the foundation.

Mr. Kendall asked would owner have to sell the house as it stands and suffer an economic injury.

Mr. Meier stated to the cost would prohibit the owner from building up.

Mr. Wyman asked for clarification of the addition, the current garage would become a great room and the new addition would be build on the current driveway.  When was the current house built.

Mr. Meier stated the house was built in the late 60's or 70's, he was not sure when the lots were created.

Ms. McPheters stated the building permit was for 1976 and the Assessor's records are from 1974.

Mr. Wyman asked for testimony from the public that was in favor 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 his house is located in Yarmouth.  He appreciated the applicant not opposing to having a surveyor placing the foundation for accuracy.  He reviewed the plan he presented to the Board showing locations of property stakes.  He and his wife have looked carefully at the proposal and find it startling to see the dwelling would double in space.  A more illuminating picture would be to compare the volume of the proposed building verses the current building.  He didnt feel the property was adequate to support the size of the addition.

Mr. Wyman asked the distance his house was from the property line.

Mr. Newman stated he would guess eighty or ninety feet. 

Mr. Meier stated the house is 15 feet above the road, and a second floor would be more imposing, the proposed addition is in keeping with neighborhood.  The angled garage can have screening with bushes.  The addition will be aesthetically pleasing.

Mr. Kendall asked if the Shapiro's bought the house in 2000, and how large is the family.

Mr. Meier stated two people reside in the house.

Mr. Kendall asked what the cost would be to add a second floor.

Mr. Meier stated he didnt know.

Mr. Kendall asked a second floor would be impractical due to age.

Mr. Meier stated age was not a factor at this time.

Mr. Kendall asked the cost of the addition.

Mr. Meier stated he was not involved with the cost he was the designer

Mr. Wyman asked the value of the house today.

Mr. Meier stated he was not an appraiser.

Mr. Kendall asked if the lots on the other side of the property were similar in size.

Mr. Meier stated the four lots that abut Route 88 are small, they are square lots, Mr. Shapiros lot is not square.  The house was built when the setback was twenty feet.  The addition can meet the current setback, but not the current combined setback.

Mr. Kendall stated the hardship is the ranch design of the house, as to whether it was built prior to current setbacks or action of the prior owner.  The builder didn't opt to have a two-story house.

Mr. Meier stated the house was built prior to the other homes, and most homes in the area have been expanded.

Mr. Wyman reviewed the practical difficulty criteria.

Practical Difficulty: 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.

Mr. Kendall said at the last meeting the option of adding a second story was discussed, the Shapiros are aging and more living space on one level would be better.

Mr. Turner stated it does saves costs to build a two story, but adding a second story addition is usually more expensive.  The existing house is a two-bedroom home and they are looking to add a third bedroom.  A two-bedroom home is a detriment in an expensive neighborhood.  A two-bedroom house is not as saleable.

        The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.
D.      No other feasible alternative to a variance is available to the petitioner;
sixty-five (65) foot combined side setback requirement for an addition to a single family dwelling at 10 Island View Drive, Tax Assessor Map U06B, Lot 1 in the Low Density Residential district.  The Board stated the addition would need to be surveyed and staked as stated in testimony.


Mr. Martin stated the applicant worked to scale back the addition.

Mr. Turner stated significant economic injury is subjective.

Mr. Martin asked if denial of profit was the same as economic injury.

Mr. Turner stated the improvements would keep the house consistent with the general neighborhood.  Ocean front lots are worth close to a million dollars.

Mr. Wyman that stated if they had to sell their two-bedroom house today they would have to pay substantially more for a three-bedroom house.

Mr. Turner stated there is a house on Route 88 on the Falmouth line, which is a ranch, which is outdated with a finished space in the basement and two bedrooms.  The house is out of character for the location and hasnt sold.

Administrative Matters

1.      Minutes - There were no minutes

2.      Update on Ordinance changes - The Planning Board will be discussing the proposed right-of-way and Non-Conforming building amendments on January 21, 2003.  

3.      Discussion on significant economic injury - Ms. McPheters stated she did not receive any information on significant economic injury.  She would make another request for the information.

Mr. Manahan asked to have the Rules of Procedure on the back of the agendas.

Ms. McPheters stated they are given to applicants with their applications.

Adjournment:  9:00 p.m.

A TRUE COPY ATTEST:



_____________________________                 _________________________
R. Scott Wyman, Board Chair                   Pam Bosarge, Board Clerk