ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Town of Frye Island
A. MEMBERS PRESENT: Earnest Wrzesinsky, Bruce Nisula, Barbara Aranyi, Paul Lyons, and Watson Clark
B. OTHERS PRESENT: ( See sign in sheet); Bill Foye, C.E.O. Frye Island
C. LOCATION: Frye Island Community Center
D. CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Nisula called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM
E. PRIOR MINUTES: The minutes of the September 21, 2001 were reviewed. Accepted Unanimously.
F. NEW BUSINESS:
1. Discussions were reopened (tabled from the September 21, 2001 meeting) regarding the request for variance from John L. and Dylan L. Paladino, Lot 1625.
Mr. Don Hadley presented the revised application giving essentially the same information as in the revised application, which included a revised septic design. Cynthia and Andrew Wright of lot 1006 gave testimony in support of the application as amended by Mr. Hadley in the course of the meeting.
The following findings of fact were approved unanimously.
1. The owner of the property is John L. and Dylan L. Paladino.
2. The property is located at Lot 1625 Leisure Lane, in the Residential –zoning district, Shore land.
3. The applicant is owner, whose deed is dated November 9, 1998.
4. The applicant proposes to sell the property, however to receive the desired market price believes a variance allowing construction within the 50 ft front (road) setback is required. A contract on the property is contingent on the variance being approved.
5. A revised application was filed October 1, 2001.
6. A public hearing was held on September 21, 2001. This appeal was tabled until October 5, 2001 and hearing continued on that date.
7. Relevant sections of the ordinance are: Section 101-6 F Subsection 1: “minimum setbacks of 50 ft. front (road) property line.
Dimensional standards required by the ordinance are: 50 ft setback from the road. Other relevant facts include the following: Alexander Wong of the Maine Department of Environmental protection issued the following comments; : (a.)If Mr. Paladino can obtain a wastewater disposal permit, the Department does not see any reason why a limited variance may not be granted.
(b.)Section 102-16.I.2.f of the Frye Island Shore land Zoning Ordinance states that the Board “shall limit any variances granted as strictly as possible in order to insure conformance “. When applying this standard to the undue hardship test, the Board should keep in mind that a variance may be granted for the minimum amount necessary to grant a reasonable rate of return. The fact that a house can be built upon the lot is sufficient.
8. The applicant states in his application;
a. The applicant cannot get a reasonable return on the property unless a variance is granted.
b. The variance is not related to unique circumstances of the neighborhood.
c. The granting of this variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.
d. The hardship is not the result of action by the current or prior owners.
10 The conditions of the property are as follows: The lot is 173’ and 214’ by 63’ on the roadside and 112’ ft on the waterfront.
11 The applicant presented at the meeting a subsurface wastewater disposal report from Darryl Brown
12 The applicant amended his written application to delete the variance request for the 100 ft water setback and to request a 15 ft reduction in the front / road setback.
The following conclusions were approved unanimously.
1. The land in question cannot yield a reasonable return because it is impossible to use for residential purposes without a variance.
2. There are unique circumstances of the property, which are not similar to the general conditions because of the angle of the shoreline.
3. The proposed use will not alter the essential character of the locality because other lots have dwellings similar to this location.
4. The hardship is not the result of action taken by the appellant or a prior owner because the lot existed before the ordinance was adopted.
Based on the above facts and conclusions, on October 5, 2001 the Board of Appeals voted to approve your application for a variance of 15 foot reduction in the front (road) property line setback. Unanimously approved.
The Board discussed how to interpret what is a minimum reasonable return in the Town of Frye Island and arrived at the following reasoning: The valid criteria for what constitutes minimum reasonable return must take into consideration the nature of land use throughout the community. For Frye Island, which is a recreational community that is inhabited essentially only during the summer months (May-October, inclusive), a covered porch or a deck is a major component of land use by the property owners. Indeed, virtually no one would consider buying a dwelling on Frye Island without a porch or a deck. Therefore, a minimum, but a reasonably sized deck or covered porch is logically part of Frye Island’s criteria for minimum reasonable return for “hardship” purposes. For other communities, which are comprised largely of year-round residences, the focus of land use by the inhabitants is substantially different; accordingly, such communities would logically not include in their criteria a porch or deck in providing minimum reasonable return for “hardship” purposes. On Frye Island, a structure, which included both a covered porch and a deck, or either one in more than minimum reasonable size, would exceed “minimum reasonable return”.
A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of October 5, 2001. Accepted unanimously.
G. CORRESPONDENCE AND ANOUNCEMENTS:
1. Future Meeting Dates as Follows:
May 24, 2002
June 28, 2002
July 26, 2002
August 23, 2002
September 20, 2002
October 11, 2002
2. Seaward, lots 1653 and 1654 variance request scheduled for the May 24, 2002 meeting.
I. ADJOURMENT: A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting at
8:57 PM. Unanimously Approved
Watson Clark, Secretary – Board of Appeals
ZBA Minutes 10-05-01