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

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

1.      Special Exception                           MSAD #51
                                                  14 School House Road
                                                  Chebeague Island, ME 04017
                                                  Tax Assessor Map I06, Lot 31
                                                  Island Residential District           

Ms. McPheters presented background information as follows: MSAD#51 requests a special exception to construct a storage building at 14 School House Road, Chebeague Island on Map I6 Lot 31 in the Island Residential (IR) District.  Tabled from April 11, 2002 meeting.

The Planning Board approved the site plan on August 21, 2001 with two conditions.  The first condition was that the site plan be amended to show the actual location of the storage shed.  The Code Enforcement Officer has not received an amended plan as required by the Planning Board.  The second condition was the requirement to receive the special exception.

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

Mr. Manahan asked to be excused as his law firm represents MSAD # 51.  Mr. Manahan was excused.

Mr. Turner asked about the actual location of the proposed shed.  

Mr. Foster stated the plan had not changed since the Planning Board Site Plan Review.  The shed will be constructed to protect the irrigation controls, and will house some rakes and shovels.  There will be no chemicals.

Mr. Wyman asked if the primary function of the shed was safety.

Mr. Foster stated yes.

Mr. Kendall reviewed the special exception criteria in Sections 603.2.3 and 603.2.7 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 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. 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. Wyman moved to grant a special exception to the MSAD # 51 to construct a storage building at 14 School House Road, Chebeague Island, Tax Assessor Map I06, Lot 31 in the Island Residential district.

Mr. Kendall seconded.                        VOTE:  Unanimous

2.      Variance                                          Jonathan & Elizabeth Swaney
                                                         5 Pine Lane
                                                         Cumberland Foreside, ME 04110
                                                         Tax Assessor Map U06, Lot 78B
                                                         Low Density Residential / SOD 1

Ms. McPheters presented background information as follows: Jonathan and Elizabeth Swaney request a variance of thirty-three (33) feet from the fifty (50) foot front setback requirement for a porch at 5 Pine Lane on Map U6 Lot 78B in the Low Density Residential District/Setback Overlay District 1.

The owners are requesting approval of the six (6) foot wide by thirty-five (35) foot long porch for safety reasons as outlined in the application.  The Board previously granted this variance on April 12, 2001.  Due to some discrepancy in the setback dimensions, progress was halted on the work allowed by the building permit.  The applicant measured the property setbacks and found that the original request was not based on accurate dimensions.  The previous approval has lapsed and the applicant is required to reapply for the same project.  

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

Mr. Swaney, applicant reviewed the history of his property and the need for the variance.  He and his wife purchased the property from Elizabeths parents, who measured incorrectly at the original variance application. The lack of hazard free access for visitors creates a hardship.

The Board reviewed the application and measurements for the porch.

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 Board is asked to grant substantially the same request as a year ago in a neighborhood where setbacks do not conform to current zoning standards.

Mr. Manahan stated the Maine Municipal Association handbook states safety issues as a reason to grant a variance.

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;
        The Board found this requirement to be satisfied

Mr. Manahan moved to grant a variance to Jonathan and Elizabeth Swaney of thirty-three (33) feet from the fifty (50) foot front setback requirement for a porch at 5 Pine Lane, Cumberland Foreside, Tax Assessor Map U06, Lot 78B in the Low Density Residential / Setback Overlay district 1.

Mr. Martin seconded.                                VOTE:  Unanimous

3.      Variance                                   John and Barbara Chandler
                                                  93 Tuttle Road
                                                  Cumberland, Maine 04021
                                                  Tax Assessor Map R01, Lot 2
                                                  Rural Residential 2 district

Ms. McPheters presented background information as follows: John and Barbara Chandler request a variance of twenty-five (25) feet from the fifty (50) foot front setback requirement for a deck addition to a single family dwelling at 93 Tuttle Road on Map R2 Lot 2 in the Rural Residential 2 (RR2) District.

The applicants are requesting approval to construct a replacement deck.  On or about May 16, 2000, the applicants requested replacing a deteriorated 9 by 18 deck with the proposed 12 by 18 deck.  Upon review, the application was denied due to the requirement of variance approval for a setback invasion.  A site visit was made on May 19, 2000 to verify the deck dimensions and, at that time, the deck had already been removed.  Our records indicate that the previous deck was permitted on October 10, 1991 as an 8 by 12 replacement of the original 6 x 15 deck.  This request is for a front setback variance due to the frontage on the private right-of-way owned by C. Sam DiBiase that was approved on October 7, 1999.

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

Mr. Turner stated he was involved with the Silvers property and the creation of Mr. DiBiases lot.  The original Silvers house was 300 feet from the property.  He asked if the creation of a private way would create a front setback on a pre-existing property.  The Chandlers property fronts on Tuttle Road.

Ms. McPheters stated the property would have two front setbacks.

Mr. Chandler, applicant stated he would like to replace a prior deck with a safe larger deck.  The original 8.5 foot deep deck was not adequate for a table and chairs and grill.  The previous deck was non-conforming.  He spoke with the DiBiases and they support his request for a deck.

The Board reviewed the history of the creation of the DiBiase lot.

Mr. Manahan asked if the applicant needed a variance.

The Board discussed the criteria stated in Sections 205.1 Lot Regulations, 101.112 Roads and 101.126 Streets of the Zoning Ordinance.  They questioned if a private-way for a single home created a front setback.

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. Manahan moved to find that the lot line on the DiBiase side (westerly side) to be a side lot line and not a front.  The front lot line is on Tuttle Road.


The Board discussed the motion and the authority to interpret the lot line.  

Mr. Manahan stated the Board has the authority to interpret and the term right-of-way is ambiguous.   

Mr. Manahan moved to grant a variance of five feet (5) from the thirty-foot (30) side setback requirement to John and Barbara Chandler for a deck at 93 Tuttle Road; Tax Assessor Map R02, Lot 2 in the Rural Residential 2 district.

Mr. Kendall seconded.                        VOTE:  Unanimous

4.      Special Exception                           Evelyn H. Duff
                                                  42 Old Gray Rd.
                                                  Cumberland, Maine 04021
                                                  Tax Assessor Map U20, Lot 27
                                                  Medium Density Residential District

Ms. McPheters presented background information as follows: Evelyn H. Duff requests a special exception for an accessory apartment at 42 Old Gray Road on Map U20 Lot 27 in the Medium Density Residential District.  This property has been misidentified and is located in the Medium Density Residential District.  This does not affect the requirement for approval of the special exception for the apartment.  The applicant has provided a floor plan for the proposed apartment.  The calculated 576 square feet of the apartment appears to be in compliance with the maximum 40% allowed by ordinance (the existing dwelling is 1,450 SF  40% would be 580 SF).  This calculation is based on representations of finished area in the basement, which has not been verified by Town staff.  Our records indicate that the current four-bedroom home is connected to an existing septic system of undetermined age.  An acceptable septic system expansion design, reviewed and approved by the Local Plumbing Inspector, will be required to accommodate all bedrooms prior to issuance of a building permit.  

The Board will need to determine that the criteria in Sections 407, 603.2.3 and 603.2.7 of the Zoning Ordinance.

Ms. Duff, applicant stated she would like to build the accessory apartment for use by her and her daughter.  They installed a new septic in the early 1990s.

Mr. Turner stated the septic would have to be checked by the Plumbing Inspector.

Mr. Turner asked if the floor plan met the criteria for an accessory apartment.

Ms. McPheters stated yes.

The Board reviewed the standards of Sections 603.2.3, 603.2.7 and 407. 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 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. Turner asked for testimony from the public in support of the application.  

Ms. Diana Duff, stated she was the applicants daughter and she was in favor of the application.

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

Mr. Kendall moved to grant a special exception to Evelyn Duff for an accessory apartment at 42 Old Gray Road; Tax Assessor Map U20, Lot 27 in the Medium Density Residential district.

Mr. Manahan seconded.                        VOTE:  Unanimous

5.      Minutes  There were no minutes.


6.      Update on Ordinance Changes - Ms. McPheters stated that Mr. Fillmore, Town Planner had been given the requests for Ordinance updates.  

The Board discussed the need for clarifying the street and private way definitions.

7.      Election of Officers  

Mr. Manahan nominated Scott Wyman for Chair of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for the next twelve months.

Mr. Kendall seconded.                        VOTE:  Unanimous

Mr. Manahan nominated Adrien Kendall for Vice-Chair of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals for the next twelve months.

Mr. Wyman seconded.                          VOTE:  Unanimous

The Board expressed its gratitude for the years Mr. Turner has served as Chair.

Ms. McPheters stated she would be on vacation during the June, 2002 meeting.

Mr. Kendall agreed to read the background information.

Mr. Wyman moved to adjourn at 9:00 p.m.

A TRUE COPY ATTEST:



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