Present:        George Turner, Chair, Andrew Black, R. Scott Wyman, Ron Copp,
Absent:         Matt Manahan, Mike Martin
Staff:                 Barbara McPheters Code Enforcement Officer, Pam Bosarge, Clerk

The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m.

1.      Variance                            John & Sandra Birkett
                                           8 Niblic Circle
                                           Chebeague Island, ME 04017
                                           Tax Assessor Map I02, Lots 73, 74 and 79A      

Ms. McPheters presented background information as follows: John and Sandra Birkett request variances of twenty-three (23) feet from the fifty-five (55) foot front and thirty-three (33) feet from the sixty-five (65) foot rear setback requirement for an addition to a single family dwelling at 8 Niblic Circle, Chebeague Island; Tax Assessor Map I02, Lots 73, 74, and 79A in the Island Business/Limited Commercial district.

The applicant is requesting approval of setback variances for an addition to their primary dwelling in order to accommodate a family of five.  Building permits were issued on April 27, 1989 for a second story and on October 24, 1991 for an entryway.  The variance request must comply with the undue hardship criteria in Section 104.138.        

Mr. Turner asked if the house were in the shoreland portion of the property.

Ms. McPheters stated no.

Mr. Birkett, applicant stated they had lived in the house for fifteen years.  The attic had been converted to bedrooms in 1989; the house has a 24' x 26' footprint.  They are expecting a third child and have out grown the space.  There is an existing set of stairs in the middle of the house; they are narrow, steep and treacherous.  The addition would have new safer stairs.

Mr. Turner asked if the house pre-dated the Ordinance.

Mr. Birkett stated yes.

Mr. Turner asked if an addition would interfere with fire trucks.

Mr. Birkett stated no.

Mr. Wyman asked if the porch was covered.

Mr. Birkett answered yes.

Mr. Turner asked if the right-of-way was in the front and was John Small Road a side.  He asked the square footage of the porch.

Mr. Birkett stated 8' deep along the front of the house and would wrap around on the sides.  The side property doesn't have as steep a grade so the steps would not have to extend as far.

Ms. McPheters presented the Board with the set of building plans that were not included in the Board members packets.  She stated she misspoke earlier and the house is within the shoreland zone but meets the setback requirement of 75 feet or more.

Mr. Black asked if the application was to be considered under the "undue hardship criteria.

Ms. McPheters stated yes.

Mr. Black asked about the three different lots and which lots were affected.

Mr. Birkett stated the house is located on the middle lot.

Mr. Copp asked the significance of the three lots, were they in the same name.

Mr. Birkett stated they have always been in one name.

Ms. McPheters stated that for zoning purposes they are considered one lot.  The tax maps show three lots.

Mr. Turner asked if the lots could be built on separately.

Ms. McPheters stated yes, if they were in separate ownership.  The lots cannot be sold separate they are considered one lot under the zoning ordinance.

Mr. Black asked what evidence the applicant had that they couldn't yield a reasonable return without the variance.

Mr. Birkett stated they couldn't use the house for his family.  It is very cramped.  The kitchen and bath are approximately 600 square feet of the available 1200 square feet on the first floor.  There is no room for the children to practice violin, or do homework.  And the stairs are very steep and unsafe.

Mr. Black again asked about reasonable return and re-sale value.

Mr. Birkett stated the house had a porch when it was purchased.  The current porch is in poor shape and needs to be repaired.  He was not sure of the question and didn't know how to define reasonable return.  Was it a question of use or investment?

Mr. Turner agreed there was some subjectivity to the standard.

Mr. Kendall asked if the old porch was still existing, and was the extension of the new room to accommodate the stair geometry.

Mr. Birkett stated yes.

Mr. Kendall stated the request had to be considered under the most stringent guidelines.  He had no problem with the need for living space and the safety issue of the stairs.  He was not sure the covered porch met the undue hardship criteria.

Ms. Sandra Birkett, applicant stated she had spent every summer of her life at the house and the porch was a treasured component of the house.  The new porch would add character and bring back a cottage appearance.

Mr. Kendall asked if the wrap around extensions could be eliminated.

Ms. Birkett stated the incline of the yard would require steep long extensive stairs if they were extended towards the shore.

Mr. Wyman and Mr. Kendall asked if the porch could be configured to stay within the current footprint.

Mr. Birkett stated the grade of the property required the stairs to be on the sides.

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

Mr. Peter Maher, of 18 Rose Point Road stated he had been inside the Birkett's house and agreed they needed more space.  The addition would not impact views or the shoreland.  He was not clear on the term reasonable return however, if they couldn't make the house more livable he didn't think they could get a return on their investment.  It has a nice lot but it is configured strangely.  An architect had drawn up plans that would enhance the property and he was in favor of the variance request.

Mr. Turner asked for testimony that was in opposition.

Ms. Lola Armstrong of 40 John Small Road stated she is an abutter.  She understood the need for more room, but was opposed to extending the porch further towards their property. She was not opposed to adding onto the house and maintaining the same footprint.

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

Mr. Turner stated that the Zoning Ordinance has evolved over a twenty-year period.  In July of 2000, a setback overlay district was created to allow less stringent requirements in certain areas.  The undue hardship criteria are difficult to meet.  This request is unique that the owners are third generation family who has a desire to update the property to today's living standards.  The standard of reasonable return does refer to livability as well as monetary.  There has been valid testimony in favor and in opposition of the request.  The request would not be detrimental to the environment.

Mr. Wyman asked about the right-of-way and which way the house faced.

Mr. Birkett stated the house faces the water.

Ms. McPheters reviewed the setback from the water would be shoreland 75 feet and the side setbacks are 30 with a combined of 65'.

Mr. Black agreed the application was difficult the plans are tasteful and would improve the character of the house.  He understood the house was currently nonconforming.

Mr. Turner asked if a front setback could be from the water.

Ms. McPheters stated the Board has in other cases determined the front setback to be the water however, this lot has no frontage on the water it abuts another lot.

Mr. Wyman asked if the house had always been year-round.

Mr. Birkett stated yes, since the 1950's.

Mr. Kendall asked for clarification on entering the house.

Ms. Sandra Birkett stated the house is entered from the side opposite the water.

The Board reviewed the setbacks and lot definitions for corner lot.

Ms. McPheters stated the setbacks were determined from previous permits, which specifically designated front, side, and rear setbacks.

Mr. Kendall reviewed Section 205.1, lots which abut on more than one street shall provide the required front setbacks along each and every street on which that lot abuts.

Mr. Black asked if the portion towards the shore was the rear.

Ms. McPheters stated common sense would dictate the rear would be opposite the front.

Mr. Black asked about consistency with prior permits.

Ms. McPheters stated the prior permits were clear 65' was designated as a front setback.

Mr. Black asked if the rear setback was towards the water.

Ms. McPheters stated it was not clear, as it was not addressed.

Mr. Copp agreed the Board should determine the front and rear setbacks for the property.  He asked if the porch could be narrowed from eight feet to seven feet.

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


Mr. Kendall moved to grant variances of twenty-three (23) feet from the fifty-five (55) foot front and thirty-three (33) feet from the sixty-five (65) foot rear setback requirement for an addition to a single family dwelling at 127 John Small Road, Chebeague Island; Tax Assessor Map I02, Lots 73, 74 and 79A in the Island Business district / Limited Commercial district.

Mr. Copp seconded.                           VOTE:  2 in favor (Turner, Copp)
                                                    2 opposed (Kendall, Black)

The variance request was denied.

Mr. Kendall moved to determine that the property line opposite Shore Road (next to the Armstrong property) is considered a side setback of the property and the shoreland side of the property is considered a rear setback.

Mr. Copp seconded.                           VOTE:  Unanimous

2.      Variance                                   Michelle and Paul Josephson
                                                  153 Middle Road
                                                  Cumberland, Maine 04021
                                                  Tax Assessor Map R01, Lot 21
                                                  Rural Residential 1 (RR1) district

Ms. McPheters presented background information as follows: Michelle and Paul Josephson request a variance of fifteen (15) feet from the 50 foot front setback requirement for a garage and living space addition to a single family dwelling at 153 Middle Road on Map R1 Lot 21 in the Rural Residential 1 (RR1) District.

The applicants are requesting approval of a setback variance for a two-story addition for a garage and living space.  Permits have been issued previously for minor construction such as sheds, steps and interior alterations.  

The variance request must comply with the practical difficulty criteria in Section 104.97 of the zoning ordinance.

Ms. Michelle Josephson, applicant stated they would like to build a two-story garage and add a bedroom.  They purchased the house in 1996, with no children; they now have two children and need more space.  The house was built in 1947, and is similar to the other homes in the area.  There is no other place on the lot to build a garage.  The back of the house has the septic system and the other side slopes and has a small run-off.

Mr. Turner asked if the location of the proposed garage was typical of the front setback distances of other houses in the neighborhood.

Ms. Josephson stated yes, they are not requesting to be any closer to the road, the garage will be flush with the front of the house.

Mr. Black asked how close the septic system was to the proposed addition, and could the garage be placed on the other side of the house.

Ms. Josephson stated approximately fifteen feet from the corner of the house and approximately ten feet from the garage.  The garage cant go on the other side because of the gully and run-off.

Mr. Kendall asked the location of the neighbors who signed in agreement with the variance request.

Ms. Josephson stated across the street and on either side of their property.

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

Mr. Turner stated the request would not encroach any further into the front setback.  The variance would be considered under the practical difficulty standard, there appears to be no feasible alternative.

The Board reviewed the Practical Difficulty standards with the following findings:

        The Board found this requirement to be satisfied.

D.      No other feasible alternative to a variance is available to the petitioner;

Mr. Kendall moved to grant a variance of fifteen (15) feet from the fifty (50) foot front setback requirement for a garage and living space addition to a single family dwelling at 153 Middle Road; Tax Assessor Map R01, Lot 21 in the Rural Residential 1 (RR1) district.

Mr. Copp seconded.                                  VOTE:  Unanimous


The minutes of February 14, 2002 were tabled to the April 11, 2002 meeting.

Adjourned:  9:00 p.m.

A TRUE COPY ATTEST:



_______________________________        ____________________________
George S. Turner, Board Chair                 Pam Bosarge, Board Clerk