BOARD OF APPEALS
MINUTES OF MEETING OF OCTOBER 7, 2005
Meeting Called to order at 7:10 p.m.
Present were E. Wrzesinsky, B. Aranyi, J Gardner, T. McCarthy H. Molloy and CEO P. White.
Unable to attend was R. Kaplan
1 T. McCarthy moved the minutes of the September 23, 2005 meeting, with two corrections. Seconded by B. Aranyi and unanimously approved.
2. Chairman Wrzesinsky advised the Board and those in attendance that the meeting will adjourn at 10:00 p.m. Any matters not heard by then will be carried over to the next meeting.
3. Chairman Wrzesinsky asked the board for a motion “to reopen the board’s deliberations on its decision in the Toomey Variance.
Mrs. Aranyi (who voted in the affirmative on the decision at the September 23, 2005 meeting) made the following motion: “That the Board reopen its deliberations on its decision in the Toomey Variance”. Mrs. Aranyi amended her motion to add “and to have an attorney present to advise us”.
Mr. McCarthy asked why this was asked for.
Chairman Wrzesinsky said the he was informed that the Board of Selectmen have instructed the Town Manager to Appeal the Toomey Variance. That he spoke with the Town Manager and discussed 1. Doing nothing, 2. Reopening our hearing or 3. Appealing to County Court and would only reopen the hearing if we had an attorney present to advise us. The Town Manager said he already had a call in to the attorney and would advise me.
Chairman Wrzesinsky 2 the motion, as amended to include an attorney.
Discussion followed as to who could vote. Mr. Kaplan will not be able to attend. Mr. Molloy, board alternate, was in attendance at the September 23, 2005 meeting and could sit and vote at this meeting. Mr. Gardner was not in attendance but said he would read the file and then determine if he feels he could participate.
Chairman Wrzesinsky advised that since we are reopening our deliberations on our decision and the public part of the meeting had been closed no additional testimony or information will be taken.
The vote on the motion passed with five (5) yes and zero (0) no votes.
The meeting was set for Friday, October 14, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Community Center. Chairman Wrzesinsky will send a letter to Mr. Toomey and call him to advise him.
4. The Tedford Variance was heard.
Chairman Wrzesinsky reviewed the action taken at the September 23, 2005 meeting where: 1. The board voted to hear this appeal due to its late filing and 2. Mr. Tedford amending his application.
Mr. Gardner asked Mr. Tedford where the 10 foot setback came from. Mr. Tedford advised that the then C.E.O. Mr. Foy had visited him before construction began and he told Mr. Foy that he wanted to store his boat in the garage. Mr. Foy told him the road beside where the garage would be built was a right a way and he did not need 15 feet.
Mr. Wrzesinsky asked Mr. Tedford if he had any thing to support this with. Mr. Tedford replied he had tried to contact Mr. Foy without success, that he even contacted friends and past coworkers without success. Mr. Tedford had asked the Frye Island Town Manager Wayne Foumier if he could contact him.
Mr. Fournier, who was in attendance advised that he spoke, by telephone, with Mr. Foy who was in Florida and while he (Mr. Fournier) did not know the facts of the case and the 10 feet problem he said that Mr. Foy told him it was no problem, did not have an issue with it and recalls meeting with Mr. Tedford..
C.E.O. White advised that a C.E.O. can not grant a variance.
Mr. Gardner asked Mr. Tedford if he altered the set back on the say of Mr. Foy and he said he did.
Mr. Wrzesinsky asked Mr. Tedford what the dimensions of the garage were. He advised that it is 16 feet wide, 17 feet deep to the spot where it connects to the house and 28 feet to the back wall.
Mr. Tedford provided a picture of the front of the garage and a letter from the Camden National Bank denying his application for a loan due to the set back problem.
Mr. Tedford cited the Rivard and Finnegan cases where the board had granted set back variances.
Mr. Tedford said that the cost to remove the garage and foundation was $15,000, the cost to restore the house was $7,500 and the cost of the construction was $35,000. This would make the total cost $57,500.
No abutters spoke at the meeting. A letter had been sent to the board Robert and Jean Russo, 312 Leisure Lane, who are abutters across the Street, saying they would like the variance to be granted.
Mr. James Kuiken of 323 Leisure Lane said that Mr. Tedford acted in good faith on the say so of the then C.E.O. Mr. Foy and we should believe him. He also said he felt having to remove the structures could cause more damage to the lake than leaving them as is.
Mr. Tedford advised that the property line
along the road cuts off a corner of the property
between the house and Leisure Lane.
The public portion of the hearing was closed.
Mrs. Aranyi asked if we should continue this matter for six months to give Mr. Tedford more time to contact Mr. Foy.
Mr. McCarthy asked if there was any harm in doing this.
Mr. Molloy said we heard about Mr. Foy and the Town Manager talking, did Mr. Foy say anything.
Mr. Fournier said he knew about the appeal but did not know the ten foot issue. He did discuss the set back issue with Mr. Foy who said he did meet with Mr. Tedford at his home and did not recall any issues with the set back.
Mr. Gardner said it would be unreasonable to remove it.
Mr. Molloy said any changes will alter the look and value and is a financial liability.
Mrs. Aranyi asked when the deck was constructed and the C.E.O. said it was after the garage and without a permit.
The following motions were made
A. The land in question can not yield a reasonable return unless a variance is granted. On a motion by Mr. Molloy and a 2nd by Mr. Gardner, the board voted to accept Mr. Tedford’s explanation that they can not yield a reasonable return based upon the expenses associated with the removal of the garage and deck plus subsequent changes in the value of the property, by a vote of four (4) yes and one (1) no.
B. The need for the Variance is due to the unique circumstances of the property and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood. On a motion by Mr. McCarthy and a 21c by Mr. Gardner, the board voted that the lot has an unusual shape as most are rectangular, by a vote of five (5) yes and zero (0) no.
C. The granting of a variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. On a motion by Mr. McCarthy and a 2’’ by Mr. Molloy, the board voted that the character of the neighborhood will not be altered, by a vote of five (5) yes and zero (0) no.
D. The hardship is not the result of action taken by the applicant or a prior owner. On a motion by Mr. Gardner and a 2” by Mrs. Aranyi, the board voted that it was rather the failure of the previous CEO to measure the setback as required in the Application for the Building Permit, by a vote of four (4) yes and one (1) no.
Board of Appeals then voted by a vote of five (5) For and none (0) Against to approve the application for variance with the following Condition:
That a Building Permit must be obtained by the Applicant from the Frye Island Code Enforcement Official for the construction of the cited deck.
5. The board had a discussion on the need to have an attorney meet with the board and provide legal information on the “Reasonable Return” issue. Chairman Wrzesinsky advised that he will bring this to the Town Manager.
6. Meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.
Dated: October 12, 2005
Submitted by E. Wrzesinsky, Chairman