Minutes of Meeting of July 28, 2000

A.    MEMBERS PRESENT:  Barbara Aranyi, Bruce Nisula, Ernest Wrzesinsky and Robert Roberts, Chairman.

B.    OTHERS PRESENT: (See sign in sheet.)  Gerald Daigle, Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) of Frye Island was not present.

C.    LOCATION:  Frye Island Community Center

D.    CALL TO ORDER:  The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:04PM.

E.     PRIOR MINUTES:  The draft minutes of the 6/30/00 meeting of the Board of Appeals were reviewed approved without modification.

F.     OLD BUSINESS: 

1)     Variance appeal submitted by Don Hadley of Lot 1872

A letter, dated July 12, 2000, from the owner requesting that the application remain tabled was discussed.   It was noted that as a matter of procedure applications that are tabled without a time limit automatically expire one year from the initial public hearing.   Ed Johnson, Lot 1681, inquired whether abutters would be sent notification of a future meeting when it was placed on the agenda.  The Chairman responded that abutters would be notified.  A motion was made and seconded to table the application pending owner’s request for consideration at a future meeting no later than May, 2001 (thereafter it shall expire).  Unanimously approved.

2)     Variance appeal submitted by Ernest Wrzesinsky Lot 285

Ernest Wrzesinsky was not acting as a Board Member during the conduct of the portion of the meeting dealing with his variance appeal.  A letter, dated July 15, 2000, from the him requesting that the application remain tabled was discussed.   He requested that his application be tabled in a manner similar to the foregoing.   A motion was made and seconded to table the application pending owner’s request for consideration at a future meeting no later than May, 2001 (thereafter it shall expire).  Unanimously approved.

3) Variance appeal submitted by Louis A. Ezzio, Lot 1407

The owner was not present when the Board, in the natural course of its agenda, opened consideration of the variance appeal.   It was not known whether the ownership of the adjoining lot was identical with that of the subject lot.  The Board wondered whether adjoining lots owned by the same person must be joined if they are of sub-minimal lot size, and decided to seek legal consultation concerning the Board’s responsibilities under such circumstances.  The following motion was made and seconded:  Table the application to obtain an opinion from the Town attorney regarding how the law concerning adjoining lot ownership affects board deliberations.  Unanimously approved. 

Later in the course of the meeting, after the owner had arrived, a motion was made and seconded to reopen the application for consideration at the meeting.  Unanimously approved.

Mr. Ezzio offered the same testimony as formerly made and added that the subject property is owned by him and his wife, while the adjoining property is owned by his wife. 

A motion was made and seconded to approve the Findings of Fact as approved at the previous meeting, modified to document that the current public hearing was held as follows:

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 and July 28, 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 Members discussed their conclusions regarding the justifications for each of the four undue hardship standards. A question was raised as to whether a property owner who had purchased the subject property after the Town of Frye Island adopted its Ordinances would not be considered subject to a self-created hardship.  A motion was made and seconded to approve the folowing  Conclusions:

        Conclusions

1.     The land in question can not yield a reasonable return because there is not sufficient depth to accommodate a reasonable dwelling. 

2.     There are unique circumstances of the property which are not similar to the general conditions because the property is a corner lot with extreme shallowness of the lot along Doreen Lane. 

3.     The proposed use will not alter the essential character of the locality because other lots typically have dwellings with decks.   Unanimously approved.

The board Members continued the discussion of their conclusions regarding the justification for the last hardship standard.  A motion was made and seconded to approve the following conclusion:

Conclusion

4.  The hardship is not the result of action taken by the appellant because  the applicant did not create the unique circumstances of the size of the lot and the fact that it is a corner lot.   Approved (Vote 3-1 with Nisula casting the dissenting vote).

The Board considered the above facts and conclusions. A motion was made and seconded to approve the application. Approved (Vote 3-1 with Nisula casting the dissenting vote).

4)  Variance appeal submitted by Randall Cail Lot 403

Mr. Hadley represented the owners and gave testimony substantially the same as in the revised application.   Paul White, Lot 1989, emphasized the poor visibility at the turn in Leisure Lane around the lot and opposed the granting of a variance for this reason, as did his wife.  Jerry Jackson, Lot 1990, stated that all the abutters opposed granting a variance because they didn’t want a house up next to the road.  Mr. White noted that a typographical error had occurred in the notice to abutters in that it showed a date of July 8, instead of July 28, the date on all other abutter notices for this meeting.  

The Board discussed the dimensional issues and facts of the appeal.   A motion was made and seconded to approve the following Findings of Fact:

Findings of Fact

1.      The owner of the property is Randall Q. Cail and Sarah M. Cail.

2.      The property is located at Lot 403, in the Residential zoning district.

3.      The applicant is Don Hadley, who presented a letter dated June 15, 2000, from Randy Cail as documentation of his authority to be applicant on behalf of owner.

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

5.      A completed application was submitted July 10, 2000.

6.      A public hearing was held on June 30 and July 28, 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  a 11’ front setback reduction from the southerly property line on Leisure Lane and a 4’  front setback reduction from the easterly property line on Leisure Lane to allow construction of a dwelling with a 12’ deck on the southerly exposure.

10.  The land is undeveloped.

11.  The conditions and character of the neighborhood are unusual in that multiple lots have driveways entering the portion of Leisure Lane abutting the property.

12.  The conditions of the property are as follows:  The property is a corner lot with Leisure Lane abutting three of its dimensions—113’ easterly, 89’ westerly, and 105’ southerly. 

13.  The reasons presented by the appellant for the variance request is because “If 50’ setback is required from all three sides there is not space to build a reasonably sized house.”

14.    Other relevant facts include the following:  The date of the deed is October 29, 1986. The dwelling would be set back 15 ft from the property line shared with Lot 402.  Unanimously approved.

The Board Members discussed their conclusions regarding the justifications for each of the four undue hardship standards.  A motion was made and seconded to approve the following  Conclusions:

      Conclusions

1.     The land in question can not yield a reasonable return because there is not sufficient depth to accommodate a reasonable dwelling without a variance.

2.     There are unique circumstances of the property which are not similar to the general conditions because the property is a corner lot with Leisure Lane on three sides.

3.     The proposed use will not alter the essential character of the locality because other lots typically have dwellings with decks.

4.     The hardship is not the result of action taken by the appellant because the applicant purchased the property in 1986. Unanimously approved.

The Board considered the above facts and conclusions, and the conditions it would impose, if approved, to address driveway access and house proximity concerns discussed during the hearing.  A motion was made and seconded to approve the application for variance with the following conditions:

1.     There shall be only one driveway which shall be located on the easterly property line no closer than 60 feet from the point where the easterly property line intersects the southerly property line.

2.     The 12 foot deck shall not be enclosed or roofed over.  Unanimously approved.

G.    NEW BUSINESS

1)     Variance appeal submitted by John E. Masayda, Lot 63

John Masayda, owner, gave testimony on the application giving substantially the same facts as in the written application.  In addition, he presented the Board with letters from a number of neighbors and abutters indicating no objection to the granting of a variance (Name/Lot:  Miner/60, Norris/61, Luchor/65, Stanford/66, Wilson/143).   During the presentation, it was made evident that an adjoining lot owner had placed a shed next to the applicant’s property line where he proposes to place his shed.  The Chairman will call this fact to the Code Enforcement Officer’s attention.  When questioned about several possible alternative positions on the lot for the shed where variances would not be required, applicant responded that for those various positions the hardships were either 1) interfering with a parking area, 2) impeding car access to the cellar on the waterfront side of the house, 3) creating an undesirable appearance or 4) making it difficult for contractor’s vehicles to gain access to potential work areas.

The Board discussed the dimensional issues and facts of the appeal.   A motion was made and seconded to approve the following Findings of Fact:

Findings of Fact

1.      The owner of the property is John E. Masayda.

2.      The property is located at Lot 63, in the Residential zoning district, Shoreland.

3.      The applicant is owner.

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

5.      A completed application was submitted June 24, 2000.

6.      A public hearing was held on July 28, 2000.

7.      Relevant sections of the ordinance are: Land Use Ordinance Section 101-6, Paragraph H, Sub-paragraph 2.

8.      Dimensional standards required by the ordinance are:  15’ setback from the side property line.

9.      The variance request consists of a reduction of 11’ in the side setback to allow construction of a 10’ by 12’ shed.

10.  The land is being used as residential property.

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

12.  The conditions of the property are as follows:   The lot is 220’ in length  and 75’ wide at the road.

13.  The reasons presented by the appellant for the variance request is that due “to the topography” of the lot, the placement of the shed requires a variance.

14.  Other relevant facts include the following:  Nine neighbors and abutters expressed no objections to the variance.  Unanimously approved.

The Board Members discussed the applicant’s justification of variance and their conclusions regarding the justifications for the first of the four undue hardship standards.  A motion was made and seconded to approve the following conclusion:

  Conclusion

1.     The land in question can yield a reasonable return without a variance because the shed can be positioned elsewhere on the lot without requiring a variance.  Not Approved (Vote 1-3 with Aranyi, Roberts, and Wrzesinsky casting the dissenting votes).

The board Members continued the discussion of their conclusions regarding the justification for the first hardship standard.  A motion was made and seconded to approve the following conclusion:

Conclusion

1.     The land in question can not yield a reasonable return without a variance because to position the shed elsewhere would prevent a reasonable return. 

     Not Approved (Vote 2-2 with Roberts and Nisula casting the dissenting votes).

The applicant agreed to present photographs to the Board at its next meeting in order to clarify the unique circumstances of his lot.  A motion was made and seconded to table the application to the next meeting to permit the applicant an opportunity to present photographs of the relevant areas of the lot.  Unanimously approved.

H.    CORRESPONDENCE AND ANNOUNCEMENTS:

    1.  Future Meeting Dates as follows:

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

2.     Modifications to the pamphlet, Information for Board of Appeals Applicants

It was discussed that the Town office staff are giving prospective applicants a package consisting of two documents-- Information for Board of Appeals Applicants (version dated 5/30/99) and Application Form (version dated 5/26/00), which is in keeping with Board procedures.  The Board will consider modifications to the former at its next meeting to bring the fee charges indicated thereon in line with what the Town is currently charging.

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

Above Minutes approved at Meeting of August 25, 2000.

Respectfully submitted,

Bruce C. Nisula
Secretary, Board of Appeals