Board of Appeals
Town of Frye Island

Minutes of Meeting of June 30,2000

A.    MEMBERS PRESENT:  Barbara Aranyi, Stan Karpacz, Paul Lyons, Bruce Nisula, and Robert Roberts.

B.    OTHERS PRESENT: (See sign in sheet.)  Gerald Daigle, the Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) of Frye Island was present.

C.    LOCATION:  Frye Island Community Center

D.    CALL TO ORDER:  The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:03PM.

E.     PRIOR MINUTES:  The draft minutes of the 5/26/00 meeting were reviewed approved without modification.

F.     OLD BUSINESS:   1)  A copy of the standard opening, informational remarks made by the Chairman were delivered to each Member.

G.    NEW BUSINESS:

1)  Request for extension of time condition to variance by Richard and Susan Zamis.

 Susan Zamis gave testimony that she plans to purchase the property, Lot Number 1846, before July 30, 2000.  Ed Johnson of Lot Number1681 stated that he was in favor of the extension.  A letter sent by facsimile to the Board stated that Richard and Susan Zamis have “a purchase agreement, and will be ready to close on the purchasing” prior to July 30, 2000.  The Board Members discussed the request.  A motion was made and seconded to approve the following letter addressed to Mr. and Mrs. Zamis:   Regarding the variance approved for your property, Lot 1847, in the Residential zoning district of the Town of Frye Island, Maine, dated September 24, 1999, which variance is subject to the condition that “Appellant must by May 1, 2000, obtain ownership of the adjoining property, lot Number 1846”, the Zoning Board of Appeals has acted to approve the following modification of the condition:   Appellant must by July 30, 2000, obtain ownership of the adjoining property, lot Number 1846.  Unanimously approved.

2)  Variance appeal submitted by Don Hadley of Lot 1872

It was noted that the application package available for timely review by the Board Members lacked legal documentation (deed), justification of variance,  and a specific dimensional request for the variance.  Mr. Don Hadley, stated owner of the property, delivered a memorandum regarding his Justification of Variance and dated June 28, 2000, to the Board.  He gave testimony on the application; however, the information he presented was different from that in the written application.  Also, he exhibited a plot plan which differed from that in the application.   Ed Johnson of Lot 1681 said that to his knowledge Notices to Abutters were not received by any of the abutters.   Mal Wilson of Lot 1683 confirmed this.  Paul Bourque of Lot 1682 said he suspected the plot plan was in error with respect to certain dimensions.  Mr. Hadley asserted that the Town of Standish had issued a permit for the deck, but the copy of the permit provided in the application seemed questionable on whether a deck was included.  Ed Johnson of Lot 1681 asked the CEO how long a building permit would be valid, and then added, to his knowledge, it would not be valid for more than one year.  Lou Ezzio of Lot 1407 commented that he was an applicant for a variance that involved property with right-of-ways on more than one side.  Mr. Hadley opined that the Town of Standish had a history of violating its own 50 foot setback ordinance with respect to corner lots.   The plot plan shown by the applicant at the time of the meeting outlined a deck area on one side that could be constructed without requiring a variance.  The Board discussed the incomplete and inaccurate nature of the written application.  A motion was made and seconded to table the application to the next meeting to permit the applicant time to submit a revised, complete application. 

Unanimously approved.

3)  Variance appeal submitted by Richard Palmisano Lot 1053

It was noted that the application package available for timely review by the Board Members lacked legal documentation (deed), justification of variance,  and  specific dimensional requests for the variances sought.  Richard Palmisano, stated owner of the property, gave testimony on the application; however, the information he presented was different from that in the written application.  He admitted that the proposed shed would be completely within the 50’ front setback, whereas the application made no variance request with respect to this dimension.   He asserted that there would be no significant traffic view obstruction by the shed.  The plot plan indicates an area for positioning of a “future garage” which would require a variance from  the 50’ front setback from High Point.  Future structures requiring variances should not be shown on the site plan if not part of the current appeal.  It was apparent from the plot plan submitted that a shed could be positioned in an alternative site on the property without requiring a variance.  The Board discussed the incomplete and inaccurate nature of the written application.  A motion was made and seconded to table the application to the next meeting to permit the applicant time to submit a revised, complete application. 

Unanimously approved.

4)  Variance appeal submitted by Ernest Wrzesinsky Lot 285

A letter dated June 27, 2000 from Anton Clement of Lot 286 stating no objection to the garage’s location was received.   It was reported by the Chairman that he had received a letter favorable to the application from Ron Lutz of Lot 284.  Mr. Wrzesinsky gave testimony on the application giving substantially the same facts as in the written application.  Further, he emphasized the problems he and the Town have had over the years with storm run-off  from the road (the lot is below road level) and with storm water on his property.  He stated that the DEP had been consulted on what could be done, but did not provide anything written.   He asserted that placing the garage in any other location on the property would interfere with the drainage patterns that he has achieved over the years to keep water out of his basement.  When he bought the property in 1985, the vast majority of the 25’ of erosion of lakefront had occurred.    He was asked if he had any photographs to illustrate to the Board the critical drainage patterns, and offered to provide them at the next meeting. The Board discussed various means to assess the unique drainage patterns on the property and settled upon photographs.  A motion was made and seconded to table the application to the next meeting to permit the applicant time to present photographs of the relevant areas of the lot. 

Unanimously approved.

5)     Variance appeal submitted by Louis A. Ezzio Lot 1407

Mr. Ezzio gave testimony on the application giving substantially the same facts as in the written application.  Further, he said he owns Lot 1406 as well.  He purchased Lot 1407, the lot for which a variance is sought, in 1999, after Frye Island became a town and adopted its Land ordinances.  It was noted that the abutters had not been sent the Notice to Abutters regarding the variance request. The Board discussed the dimensional issues.  A motion was made and seconded to approve the following Findings of Fact:

Findings of Fact

1.      The owner of the property is Louis A. Ezzio and Tracie G. Ezzio.

2.      The property is located at Lot 1407, in the Residential zoning district.

3.      The applicant is owner.

4.      The applicant proposes to construct a new dwelling on the subject property.

5.      A completed application was submitted May 29, 2000.

6.      A public hearing was held on June 30, 2000.

7.      Relevant sections of the ordinance are:  Section 101-6, Paragraph H.  Section 101-14, Paragraph A, which states “Lots which abut on more than one (1) right-of-way shall provide the required front setback along every right-of-way.”

8.      Dimensional standards required by the ordinance are:   “Front building setback:  fifty (50) feet.

9.      The variance request consists of  19 foot setback reduction from Doreen Lane to allow construction of a dwelling 24’ X 32’ with a deck 24’ X 12’.

10.  The land is undeveloped.

11.  The conditions and character of the neighborhood are not unusual.

12.  The conditions of the property are as follows:  The property is a corner lot with only 70’ of depth from Doreen Lane. 

13.  The reasons presented by the appellant for the variance request is because “A 50’ setback from Doreen Lane is not possible for a 24’ wide home facing Leisure Lane.”

14.    Other relevant facts include the following:  The date of the deed is November 10, 1999. The dwelling would be located 100 ft from the front property line along leisure lane, but a 19’ setback variance from Doreen Lane is required to meet a 15’ setback requirement from adjoining Lot 1408. Unanimously approved.

The Board discussed that notice in the FINS newspaper was not sufficient notification since the ordinance requires written notice to those within 250 feet of the subject property.  A motion was made and seconded to table the application to the next meeting to permit abutters to be notified in writing.

Unanimously approved.

6)     Variance appeal submitted by Randal Cail Lot 403

It was noted that the application package available for timely review by the Board Members lacked legal documentation (a letter documenting Mr. Hadley’s authority to act as agent for the owners), justification of variance,  and a specific dimensional request for the variance.  Mr. Don Hadley, stated agent for the owner of the property gave testimony on the application; however, the information he presented was different from that in the written application.  Also, he exhibited a plot plan which differed from that in the application.  Jerry Jackson of Lot 1990 said he thought it was not a buildable lot and should be used for privacy.  He noted that about 10 driveways enter the road which is on three sides of the lot, and that the resulting confluence of drives and a blind curve made a very risky portion of Leisure Lane.  Judy Ashley of Lot 1988 also expressed safety concerns and wanted to know where the lot’s driveway would be located.  The CEO pointed out that the Town Ordinance is silent on location of driveways.  Paul white of Lot 1989 opposed the granting of a variance.  Judy Ashley joined him.  The Board noted that a dwelling could be constructed on the lot without obtaining a variance. The Board discussed the incomplete and inaccurate nature of the written application.  A motion was made and seconded to table the application to the next meeting to permit the applicant time to submit a revised, complete application. 

Unanimously approved.

H.    CORRESPONDENCE AND ANNOUNCEMENTS:

1.     Future Meeting Dates as follows:

July 28, 2000
August 25, 2000
September 22, 2000
October 6, 2000

I.  ADJOURNMENT:  A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting at 9:50 PM. Unanimously approved.

Above Minutes approved at Meeting of July 28, 2000.

Respectfully submitted,

Bruce C. Nisula
Secretary, Board of Appeals