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

The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m.

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

Mr. Turner informed the Board that Mr. Birketts request was heard last month and usually when an application is denied a year must elapse prior to a re-hearing.  The Ordinance states in Section 603.5.  After a decision has been made by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, a new appeal of similar import concerning the same property shall not be entertained by the Board until one year shall have elapsed from the date of said decision, except that the Board may entertain a new appeal if the Chairman believes that, owing to a mistake of law or misunderstanding of fact, an injustice was done, or if he believes that a change has taken place in some essential aspect of the case sufficient to warrant a reconsideration of the appeal.  Mr. Turner stated it was the opinion of the Board Chair to re-hear the application.  At the last meeting the Board determined that the property line opposite Shore Road (Niblic Circle) be considered a side setback of the property and shoreland side of the property be considered a rear setback.  A Board member also left early not realizing that the vote was about to take place.  The appearance of impropriety appeared from the applicants view.

Mr. Black moved to re-hear the variance request of John and Sandra Birkett.

Mr. Kendall seconded.                 VOTE:  Unanimous

Ms. McPheters presented background information as follows: John Birkett requests a variance of twenty-one (21) feet from the fifty-five (55) foot front setback requirement for an addition to a single family dwelling at 127 John Small Road, Chebeague Island on Map I2 Lots 73, 74 and 79A in the Island Business/Limited Commercial (IB/LC) District.

The Board must decide whether this request can comply with the following Successive Appeals regulations found in Section 603.5.

After a decision has been made by the Board of Adjustment and Appeals, a new appeal of similar import concerning the same property shall not be entertained by the Board until one year shall have elapsed from the date of said decision, except that the Board may entertain a new appeal if the Chairman believes that, owing to a mistake of law or misunderstanding of fact, an injustice was done, or if he believes that a change has taken place in some essential aspect of the case sufficient to warrant a reconsideration of the appeal.

If the Board decides to reconsider the application, the case has been advertised and notification provided to abutters as required by ordinance.  
The Board of Appeals at the March 14, 2002 meeting determined that the property line opposite Shore Road (Niblic Circle) is considered a side setback of the property and the shoreland side of the property is considered a rear setback.  The applicant is requesting approval of a front setback variance 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 definition found in Section 104.138.

Mr. Birkett applicant reviewed his application stating the current house has a 24 x 26 footprint. The upstairs attic had been converted to bedrooms in 1989.  They are expecting a third child and have out grown the space.  The existing set of stairs in the middle of the house are narrow, steep and treacherous.  The addition would have new safer stairs.  He stated the porch would wrap around with 8 stairs, which would be closer to the right-of-way.  The covered porch would be functional and not change the character of the neighborhood.  If the steps were to come off from the front of the porch towards the ocean they would be steep due to the slope of the land.  Steps off to the side would give a safer access in case of an emergency.  Mr. Birkett stated the property could not yield a reasonable return.  He purchased the property in 1988 and had it appraised in 1997 with no increase in value.   The property is too small for a family and cant be improved without a variance.  If they can not add onto the property they would have to sell and move.  He read letters of support from Mr. Jim Phipps, Mike and Kathy Megna, Tom Rothchild and Marjorie Howard.

Mr. Kendall asked how many people use Shore Road.

Mr. Birckett stated Mr. Richardson; the boat yard has its own driveway.  Mr. Phipps, Ms. Knight and the Megnas use the road for pedestrian traffic.

Mr. Manahan asked about the combined side setback requirement.

Ms. McPheters stated there is only one side with two front setbacks.  There is no combined side setback requirement.

The Board reviewed the determination of the March 14^th meeting that the property line opposite Shore Road (next to the Armstrong property as a side setback of the property and the shoreland side of the property to be considered a rear setback.

Mr. Kendall asked about the reconsideration action of the Board.

Ms. McPheters stated the Board was considering the application of Mr. Birkett as a new application based on the Boards determination of rear and side setbacks.

Mr. Manahan asked about the process of determining the two front setbacks.

Mr. Black stated the determination was consistent with previous permits issued.  Mr. Black asked Mr. Birkett is he had considered alternate plans that would not require the need for a variance.

Mr. Birkett stated any request for an addition would result in the need for a variance.

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

Mr. Birkett read letters from abutters Mike and Kathy Megna, Richard and Joan Phipps and Thomas Rothchild in support of the variance request.

Ms. Esther Knight, of 123 John Small Road stated the house was built 100 years ago, Shore Road was used primarily as a footpath.

Ms. Donna Damon, Town Councilor agreed the Birketts house was between three roads.  The Chebeague Long-Range Planning Committee has studied the issue of setbacks on the Island.  Most of the residences were built fifty to seventy-five years ago and are non-conforming properties.  If a property owner wants to build an addition they most likely would need to request a variance.  She stated she was in favor of granting the variance.

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

Mr. Wyman asked if the undue hardship was the unsafe stairs.

Mr. Birkett stated yes.

Mr. Wyman asked if the stairs were directly at the door or offset.

Mr. Birckett stated offset by a few inches.

Mr. Wyman asked if the extra eight feet on the porch were for stairs.

Mr. Birkett stated yes.

Mr. Wyman stated it appeared the extra encroachment was aesthetically important, however not a need.

Mr. Turner stated many homes on the Island preceded current zoning it may be potentially possible to put the room on the other side, but it would entail changing the staircase configuration.  It appears easy to draw the conclusion that steep stairs and children create safety issues that are persuasive reasons to grant the variance.  Section 104.138.3 and .4 probably can be met.

Mr. Kendall stated the applicant has a terrific application, it is more difficult for the Board due to the Shoreland stricter undue hardship criteria.  There is evidence that it is required to build out the living space for the stair geometry.  He was not convinced the expansion of the porch had the same requirement.  

The Board discussed the Section 104.1.26 of the Ordinance regarding the definition of street and setback requirements.

Mr. Wyman asked Board members if they were concerned with meeting the criteria 104.138.1 (reasonable return).

Mr. Kendall stated he could agree with the undue hardship and safety issues of the house and rebuilding the current stairs.  However, he was not convinced the extra 8 encroachment on the porch was required.

Mr. Wyman stated the Board of Adjustment and Appeals manual states reasonable return does not warrant maximum return and goes on to say that reasonable return and basis for granting a variance if there is a hazard or concern for safety.  He agreed with the need for the stair geometry, but was not sure if the eight-foot additional encroachment was necessary for the porch stairs.

Mr. Kendall stated the porch could be designed with access off the side, which faces the water.

Mr. Black stated the Board could address the application with the already determined setbacks for the lot.  He voiced concern regarding the first two hardship criteria.


Mr. Turner stated the Island has had setback problems for the twenty-two years he has been on the Board.

Mr. Wyman stated the issues of Chebeague Island would be addressed by Zoning changes by the Planning Board.  There is no opposition, no ecological damage to be done.

Mr. Turner stated the Board should be conscious of Ms. Damons comment that the Long Range Planning committee comments will be taken seriously by the Planning Board and Council.  He is sympathetic to the applicants needs and as a layperson may not always be as patient as required.

Mr. Copp stated he was not a lawyer, but the only way the applicant can build legally onto his house is if it is intrusive to his neighbors.  Everyone on the left and north of his property is agreeable.  Thirty-four feet from a grass right of way seem to be plenty.  He has put a lot of thought into the plans.

Mr. Manahan stated the reason the Board has spent so much time is that it is difficult, his plans are very good.  The difficulty is that the members are fulfilling their obligation to interpret the Ordinance, maybe there is a way to reach a middle ground.  It definitely appears there is a need for the expansion due to the unsafe stairs.  He has more difficulty with the expansion of the porch.  The Ordinance does not allow granting a variance for the porch stairs.

Mr. Kendall stated if the deck were truly an 8 wrap around the distance from the right of way would be 42, which would be a 13 variance.  He stated the Board seemed to be in agreement with the need for the addition to the house to re-configure the existing stair geometry. The Board does not favor the additional encroachment for the porch stairs.

Mr. Birkett asked if he were to change the design so that the steps on the porch did not encroach any further into the right of way would that be more agreeable to the Board.

Mr. Turner stated the Board would take his statement into consideration.

Mr. Kendall asked if based on Mr. Birketts statement would need to amend his application.

Mr. Manahan stated as long as the Board approves a variance of a lesser distance than the requested the application would not have to be re-noticed to abutters.


2.      Special Exception                           MSAD # 51
                                                  14 School House Road
                                                  Chebeague Island, ME
                                                  Tax Assessor Map I06, Lot 31
                                                  Island Residential District
Mr. Manahan asked to be excused, as the applicant was a client of his law firm.  Mr. Manahan was excused.

Ms. McPheters stated the applicant was not present.

Mr. Wyman moved to table the application of MSAD # 51 for a special exception to construct a storage building at 14 School House Road, Tax Assessor Map I06, Lot 31.

Mr. Kendall seconded.                        VOTE:  Unanimous

Mr. Turner stated that Item # 8 would be taken next, to keep the MSAD # 51 items together.

3.      Special Exception                           MSAD # 51
                                                  357 Tuttle Road
                                                  Cumberland, ME
                                                  Tax Assessor Map U11, Lots 8 & 9

Mr. Stephen Blatt, of Blatt Architects stated he is a resident of Cumberland and has been retained to design the new middle school.  After a belabored site search it was concluded that the existing Greely campus was the appropriate location of the new middle school.  It will be placed in the Southeast corner of the Wilson school lot.  The maximum student capacity will be 750 students, which will include grades 6, 7 and 8, grades 6 will be re-locating from the Drowne Road School, and grades 7 & 8 will re-locate from the current Junior High School.  The expected enrollment is 500 to 550 students.  The High School practice fields will be moved to Twin Brook.  Parking will be accessed off from Tuttle Road and the Wilson lot will be used for overflow parking for events.  A Department of Environmental Protection Site Location permit has been applied for.  They are asking for permission to expand the use of the current Greely campus, there is sufficient acreage and the use is appropriate and will strengthen the town village.

Mr. Bill Hoffman, of Hoffman Associates reviewed the special exception requirements with the following responses:
.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 applicant has prepared traffic, parking and pedestrian studies, which have been concurrently submitted, to the Planning Board for review.  The traffic permit is also subject to MDOT review.  These studies contain specific recommendations to mitigate traffic impacts and improve pedestrian access.


.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 applicant has prepared a formal Stormwater Management and Erosion Control plan for the project, which includes water quality measures.  These plans are designed such that dangerous, unpleasant, or unhealthy conditions will not be created.

.3      The proposed use will not create unhealthful conditions because of smoke, dust, or other airborne contaminants;
The project will include a specific dust control program for construction.  The school is not anticipated to generate unhealthful conditions due to smoke, dust, or other airborne contaminants.
 
.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 middle school will be sited on the existing Greely campus, which currently has three schools.  The building is designed as a "ziggurat with a low profile and scale.  Extensive buffering to the abutting senior housing and Cumberland Meadows project is proposed as shown on the landscape plans and sections provided with this submission.

.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 existing abutters will be buffered from the use as shown on the landscape plan.  Lighting will be cutoff type fixtures.  Hours of operation are normal school and civic event hours.

.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 applicant has carefully studied the parcel and designed the school to be compatible with the site.

.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 use is a school, which is commonly an attribute in a village area.

.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 project is not in a shoreland zone.

Additional Special Exception Performance Standards in Certain Zones.

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;

.2      Vibration inherently and recurrently generated shall not exceed a peak particle velocity of .01 inches per second at lot boundaries;

.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;

.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

.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 project will be served by public utilities.  A school is considered by Maine Department of Environmental Protection to be a use with insignificant noise impacts.

Mr. Black asked about erosion control.

Mr. Hoffman stated the objective would be to not increase peak rates there is no proposed increase beyond Cumberland Meadows.

Mr. Turner 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. Wyman moved to grant a special exception to MSAD # 51 for a municipal use to construct a middle school at 357 Tuttle Road; Tax Assessor Map U11, Lots 1, 8. And 9 and Map U13, Lot 112 in the Medium Density Residential (MDR) district.

Mr. Kendall seconded.                 VOTE:  5 in favor (Turner, Wyman, Copp,                                                           Kendall, Black)
4.      Special Permit                      Town of Cumberland
                                                  Goose Pond Road
                                                  Tax Assessor Map R07, Lot 48
                                                  Industrial (I) district

Mr. Manahan asked to be excused because of a conflict.

Ms. McPheters presented background information as follows: The Public Works Director, Adam Ogden will be representing the Town in this request.  The Board is requested to approve the one-year, annually renewable special permit as allowed in Section 410.1.  The Planning Board has issued an advisory opinion to forward a favorable recommendation to the Board of Adjustment and Appeals.  Last year, this request was reviewed as a special exception, which was the type of review previously conducted.  It appears that the special exception criterion does not apply but the standards of Section 410.3 are to be considered during the review and approval process.  The question of requiring a surety bond is not applicable in this instance because the Town of Cumberland will not issue a surety bond to itself.

The request must comply with the Extraction of Earth Materials regulations found in Section 410.

Mr. Adam Ogden, Public Works Director stated the Town owns a ten- (10) acre gravel pit on Goose Pond Road, which is surrounded by three other gravel pits, (Shaw Brothers, Blue Rock and the State Pit). In 1995 the Planning Board agreed to the agreement of all abutters on the north, south, and east (all existing gravel pits) to maintain no buffers.  That meant that the north-south and east abutters would each excavate a previously agreed upon amount of gravel and to stabilize the slopes.    The gravel pit operates in accordance with the Town approved plan.  Last year there was a concern regarding unsightly stumps these have been buried into the slope.  The Town gets winter sand and gravel from the pit.  There is also a stockpile of approximately 4,000 yards, which is used by the Town for projects such as Twin Brook.

Mr. Turner asked about the distance of the buffer.

Mr. Ogden stated there are no buffers as allowed in the original site plan approval.  The agreement was to have a common elevation for future land use.

Mr. Black asked the width of the Shaw Brothers property.

Mr. Ogden stated that at the narrowest point it appears to be 75 to 100 feet and at the greatest 450 to 500 feet it is a triangular piece.

Mr. Black asked how the Town could excavate without a 200-foot buffer when the Shaw Brothers pit was only 100 feet.

Mr. Ogden stated the Town could not maintain a buffer on property it did not own.  In the original site plan approval the Town attorney drafted an agreement to excavate to the common boarders.

Mr. Kendall asked if there was any standing water on the property.

Mr. Ogden stated not that he was aware of.

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

Mr. Croce an abutter in Windham stated he has abutted the pit for about thirty years and Shaw Brothers excavated gravel prior to the 200 buffer requirement.  The issue is a moot point.

Mr. Scott Morgan who purchased the Blue Rock pit also lives in Windham, agreed the pit was excavated prior to the 200 buffer requirement and the issue was a moot point.  He also asked about monitoring wells, and fencing.

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 asked about some grading issues from last years request and was the Public Works Director aware of any complaints.

Mr. Ogden stated there was a neighbor requesting buffering on property not owned by the Town.  The issue of stumps has been addressed, the stumps were buried and the slope re-graded.  

Mr. Black asked if the Shaw Brothers pit could be re-activated.

Ms. McPheters stated it would need to apply to the Town and State for re-licensing.

Mr. Ogden stated the State maintains stockpiles of processed material and loam at its pit.

Mr. Kendall moved to grant to the Town of Cumberland a special permit to operate a gravel pit as a municipal use; as allowed in Section 410 Extraction of Earth Materials in the Cumberland Zoning Ordinance; at Goose Pond Road, Tax Assessor Map R07, Lot 48 in the Industrial district.

4.      Special Exception                           Chase Custom Homes, Inc.
                                                  Agents for Edward and Marie Rasch
                                                  46 Stonewall Drive
                                                  Tax Assessor Map R07D, Lot 5
                                                  Rural Residential 2 district

Ms. McPheters presented background information as follows: Chase Custom Homes & Finance, Inc., agents for Edward and Marie Rasch, request a special exception for a home occupation at 46 Stonewall Drive on Map R7D Lot 5 in the Rural Residential 2 (RR2) District.

The purchasers are requesting approval to purchase and sell music-related trinkets over the Internet and ship the items by UPS.  This type of request usually does not require a home occupation special exception due to the fact that no customers, employees or signage is requested.

The Board will need to determine that the use will complies with Sections 104.60, 414, and 602.2.3 and 603.2.7 of the Cumberland Zoning Ordinance.

The Board questioned why the request required a home occupation.

Ms. Meg Harvey Coon, representative for the buyers stated the subdivision by-laws for Stonegate Estates required approval.  The UPS, Airborne and Federal Express trucks are in the neighborhood on a daily basis.  On April 2^nd the applicant held an informational meeting with residents of Stonegate Estates.  There were six to eight residents in attendance; the neighbors were okay with the request.  The applicant is not proposing to have any employees.

Mr. Turner asked if there would be customers at the property.

Ms. Coon stated no.

Mr. Copp asked how much storage would be needed.

Ms. Coon stated she is not musical and did not know.  There will be a proposed out building a two-car garage for storage.  There will be no waste or noise.

Mr. Copp asked if there was currently a business at the address.

Ms. Coon stated the house hasnt been built yet.

Mr. Turner asked if E-bay would be used as a market site.

Ms. Coon stated yes and other music collector websites.

Mr. Kendall asked if there would be any employees.

Ms. Coon stated no.

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.

The Board voted to waive the reading of the special exception standards.  The Board found the requirements of Sections 104.60, 414 and 603.23 and 603.27 to be met.

Mr. Kendall moved to approve the application as presented by Chase Custom Homes & Finance, Inc., agents for Edward and Marie Rasch for a home occupation at 46 Stonewall Drive; Tax Assessor Map R07D, Lot 5 in the RR2 district.

Mr. Wyman seconded.                          VOTE:  Unanimous

6.      Variance                                   Douglas and Deborah Geheb
                                                  16 Wildwood Blvd.
                                                  Cumberland Foreside, ME 04110
                                                  Tax Assessor Map U06, Lot 75
                                                  Low Density Residential / SO1

1.      Ms. McPheters presented background information as follows: Douglas and Deborah Geheb request variances of seventeen (17) feet from the front setback and fifteen (15) feet from the rear setback requirements for an addition to a single family dwelling at 16 Wildwood Boulevard on Map U6 Lot 75 in the Low Density Residential/Setback Overlay 1 (LDR/SO1) Districts.

The applicants are requesting approval to construct a living room, mud room and attached two-car garage.  The Board determined on November 18, 1999 that the accessory apartment was a lawfully existing grandfathered permissible use.

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

Mr. Geheb, applicant stated he had owned the property for 2 ½ years.  They currently enter directly into the kitchen and they would like to add a mudroom, living room and two-car garage addition.  The new addition would be architecturally seamless to the existing building and within the typical dwelling space of the rest of the neighborhood.  He has a corner lot with two front setbacks.  He presented the Board with photos of the current house and digitally enhanced photos of the proposed addition. The closest neighbor has no concerns with the proposal.  Mr. Geheb read a letter of support from Mr. Thomas McGowan.

The Board discussed the setbacks of the property in relation to the two road frontages.

Mr. Wyman moved to interpret the side setback for the property at 16 Wildwood Blvd, Tax Assessor Map U06, Lot 75 to be the side perpendicular to Sylvan Ave.

Mr. Wyman moved to grant variances of 17 feet from the front setback and fifteen feet from the rear setback requirements for an addition to a single family dwelling at 16 Wildwood Blvd., Tax Assessor Map U06, Lot 75 in the LDR / Setback Overlay 1 district.

Mr. Manahan seconded.                        VOTE:  0 in favor
                                                           Unanimous opposed
The Board determined the garage / addition must comply with the 35 front setback requirement from Sylvan Ave.

7.      Variance                                   Daryl Raven
                                                  37 Greely Road
                                                  Cumberland, Maine 04021
                                                  Tax Assessor Map R02, Lot 34B

Ms. McPheters presented background information as follows: Darryl Raven requests a variance of seventy-five feet (75) from the two hundred (200) foot frontage requirement to create a new lot at 37 Greely Road on Map R2 Lot 34B in the Rural Residential 2 (RR2) District.

The Board has the authority to grant a variance for lot frontage as indicated in Section 603.2.2.  The applicant would prefer this type of development instead of creating a back lot and private way that would be more costly.

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

Mr. Raven, applicant stated he has been a resident of Cumberland for fifty years.  He would like to create a conforming lot for his daughter, and leave his lot with 125 feet of frontage, his home is approximately 425 feet back from Greely Road.

Mr. Turner asked how many acres he owned.

Mr. Raven stated around 21 +- acres.

Mr. Kendall asked the cost of a back lot.

Mr. Raven stated his existing driveway has been in existence since 1976, to have it surveyed, and engineered to meet the standards of Section 421 would cost approximately $25,000.  It will cost him approximately $2,000 to gift the land to his daughter.  He stated the proposed location is the only buildable lot on the thirteen acres.

Mr. Black asked what was the size of the proposed lot.

Mr. Raven stated two acres.

Mr. Kendall asked if the zoning setback requirement for the existing house would be met if the property were divided.

Mr. Raven stated he had approximately 50 or 60 feet.

Mr. Black asked about the terrain of the land.

Mr. Raven stated it was wet and low.

Mr. Turner 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. Turner stated he did not see that the granting a lot frontage variance would be detrimental to the surrounding properties.  It appears it would be an economic hardship to upgrade the current driveway to meet the Private Way Standards of Section 421.

Mr. Black asked if the existing lot could be considered a back lot, therefore not requiring a variance.

Ms. McPheters stated that if the existing lot were to become a back lot it would need to conform to the Private Way Standards in Section 421 of the Ordinance.

Mr. Kendall stated Section 403.2 gave the Board the authority to reduce standards.

Ms. McPheters stated the application submitted was for a variance.

Mr. Manahan stated relaxing the Private Way Standards would be a good alternative to a variance.

Ms. McPheters asked if the application should be tabled to obtain a legal opinion on the change of request.  Relaxing the private way standards would set a precedent that applicants did not have to comply with the road construction standards.  The Board denied Fred Kinney and advised him he could put in a private way.

Mr. Turner stated there was distinguishable differences in the two requests.

Mr. Turner asked how many years the existing driveway had been in use.

Mr. Raven stated 26 years, and he has to occasionally fill a few potholes.

Mr. Kendall moved to grant a variance of seventy-five (75) feet from the two hundred (200) foot frontage requirement to create a new lot at 37 Greely Road; Tax Assessor Map R02, Lot 34B in the Rural Residential 2 district.

Mr. Wyman seconded.                          VOTE:  Unanimous

Mr. Wyman moved to approve the minutes of February 14, 2002 as presented.

                                                                  1 abstain (Manahan)

Mr. Wyman moved to approve the minutes of March 14, 2002 as presented.

Mr. Copp seconded.                                  VOTE:  Unanimous

Mr. Wyman recommended that all Board members have a Board of Appeals manual.

Mr. Manahan asked about the list of zoning concerns for the Planning Board.

Ms. McPheters stated a list had been given to Mr. Fillmore, Town Planner.  

The Board discussed the recording of Board findings in the minutes.

Meeting adjourned: 11:30 p.m.

A True Copy Attest:



____________________________                  __________________________
George Turner, Board Chair                           Pam Bosarge, Board Clerk