BOARD OF APPEALS
Town of Frye Island

Minutes of Meeting of August 20, 1999

A.    MEMBERS PRESENT:  Barbara Aranyi, 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. (N.B. Stan Karpacz was present, but did not participate in any way as a Board Member at this meeting.)) 

C.    LOCATION:  Frye Island Community Center

D.    CALL TO ORDER:  The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:02 PM.

E.     PRIOR MINUTES:  The draft minutes of the 7/23/99 meeting were reviewed.  As there were no comments or corrections, the Chairman declared that the Minutes of 7/23/99 stand approved as read.

F.     OLD BUSINESS:   1)  The Chairman communicated to the  CEO the Board’s policy that no hearing shall be held on any application that does not include a copy of the deed for the property in question.  Further, he requested that the CEO inform all appellants of this policy.

G.    NEW BUSINESS:   

1.     Variance Appeal submitted by Richard and Susan Zamis of Lot 1847.  Susan Zamis, owner, gave testimony on the application giving substantially the same facts as in the written application.  In addition, she presented the Board with photographs of the house and its new porch, and demonstrated the portion in question.  The Frye Island CEO testified that the Standish CEO had told him after the foundation was in place that things were O.K. with the project.  Edward Johnson, identifying himself as an abutter, delivered and read a letter, addressed to the Board, dated August 20, 1999, in which he stated his opposition to the variance request.  He also delivered copies of various documents which he viewed as relevant to the case; and he identified them as Exhibits A through K, and described them.  Kathy Potts of Lot 1633 inquired as to the responsibilities of contractors regarding assuring compliance with setback requirements; it was pointed out that they act as agents for the owner under contract.   Janice Gavin of Lot 1068 asked whether there might be some sort of grandfather issue here, but none could be identified.  Judy Burgess wanted to know why there could be a problem if a valid building permit was issued.  The Board discussed the facts of the case and the conclusions regarding the hardship standards.   A motion was made and seconded to Table the application in order to obtain a consultation from Town Counsel.  Motion to table included the provision that discussion by the public is closed and will not be continued when the motion is placed back on the floor and that only discussion amongst Members of the Board and answers to any questions they may have of the applicant, the CEO or the public will take place prior to voting on the application.  Unanimously approved.

 2.  Variance Appeal submitted by Robert and Mary Hunt of Lot 1620.  Mary Hunt, owner, gave testimony on the application giving substantially the same facts as in the written application.  In addition, she showed the Board photographs of the property and displayed a chart showing the position of the shed if a variance were granted.  Pat Karpacz of Lot 1620A said that the appellant’s drawings were not to scale and had inaccuracies; for example, the house is 15’ not 20’ from the side property line.  She also complained that the proposed position for the shed would block the view of oncoming traffic of persons exiting her property.  Stan Karpacz of Lot 1620A argued that there was lots of room on the lot to place the shed elsewhere.   The Board discussed the dimensional issues and the conclusions regarding the hardship standards.   A motion was made and seconded to approve the following Findings of Fact:

Findings of Fact

1.      The owner of the property is:  Robert and Mary Hunt.

2.      The property is located at Lot 1620, 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 at the time of the hearing.

6.      A public hearing was held on August 20, 1999.

7.      Relevant sections of the ordinance are: Land Use Ordinance Section 101-6, Paragraph H, Sub-paragraph 2 (15’ setback from side) and Land Use Ordinance Section 101-6, Paragraph H, Sub-paragraph 1 (50’ setback from front property line).

8.      Dimensional standards required by the ordinance are:   Front building setback:  fifty (50) feet and side building setback: fifteen (15) feet.

9.      The variance request consists of  setback reductions of 9 ft for the side and 44 ft for the front to allow construction of an 8’ 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:   There is a rocky wooden knoll and a septic system between house and road.  The distance between the front property line and the house is 53 feet.

13.  The reason presented by the appellant for the variance request is because the chosen site is the most logical place.  There are wet lands to the other side and there are enormous boulders between house and road.

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 unreasonable storage available from the existing structures on the property. .

Unanimously approved.

2.  There is a unique circumstance of the property which is not similar to the general   conditions in the neighborhood because the house is 53’ from the front property line; however,  there is not any unique circumstance with respect to the side setback reduction requested.  Unanimously approved.

3.      The proposed use will not alter the essential character of the locality because sheds are common place.  Not approved (Vote 2-2 with Aranyi and Lyons casting the dissenting votes)

4.  The hardship is not the result of action taken by the appellant because  the applicant did not change the property dimensions or topography.  Unanimously approved.

The Board considered the above facts and conclusions. A motion was made and seconded to deny the application.  Unanimously approved.

3.  Variance appeal submitted by Robert and Barbara Hannah of Lot 1631.  Robert Hannah, owner, gave testimony on the application giving substantially the same facts as in the written application.   In addition he testified that he had consulted his immediate abutters and they had no problem with his proposed variance.  He emphasized that his project was carefully chosen to be environmentally sound.  Only one tree would be cut down in order to position the shed.  He has noted no unusual water drainage on the lot.  Kathy Potts of Lot 1633 spoke in support of granting the variance.  Pat Karpacz of Lot 1620A said she had inspected the lot and agreed that there was no other position for the shed, and that she had no problem with granting the variance. The Board discussed the dimensional and environmental issues,  and addressed the conclusions regarding the hardship conditions.  A motion was made and seconded to approve the following Findings of Fact:

Findings of Fact

1.      The owner of the property is Robert and Barbara Hannah.

2.      The property is located at Lot 1631, 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 at the time of the hearing.

6.      A public hearing was held on August 20, 1999.

7.      Relevant sections of the ordinance are:  Shoreland Ordinance Section 102-15, Land Use Standards, Paragraph B, Subsection 1; and Land Use Ordinance Section 101-6, Paragraph H, Sub-paragraph 2.

8.      Dimensional standards required by the ordinance are:   100’ setback from the lake and 15’ setback from the side.

9.      The variance request consists of setback reductions (side setback reduction of 7’ and lakefront setback reduction of  28.4’) to allow construction of a 12’ by 14’ 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 182.31’ deep on one side and 186.68’ deep on the other.  The lot is 55.11’ wide at the road.

13.  The reasons presented by the appellant for the variance request is because of the storage problem created by full time summer living in the dwelling.

14.  Other relevant facts include the following:.  Only one tree would be sacrificed under this plan; and there would be nil other environmental impact.

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:

1.  The land in question can not yield a reasonable return because there is unreasonable storage available from the existing structures on the property.

2.  There is a unique circumstance of the property which is not similar to the general   conditions in the neighborhood because of its shape, narrow frontage on road, positioning of trees (only one would be sacrificed with this plan) and boulders.

3.      The proposed use will not alter the essential character of the locality because sheds are common place and hemlock tree plantings will shield the shed and assure negligible environmental impact.

4.  The hardship is not the result of action taken by the appellant because the applicant purchased the property in 1975.

Unanimously approved.

      The Board considered the above facts and conclusions. A motion was made and seconded to approve the application. Unanimously approved.

4.  Variance appeal submitted by Robert and Kathleen Giggey of Lot 257.   Richard Giggey, owner’s brother and agent (letter of agency presented at meeting), gave testimony on the application giving substantially the same facts as in the written application.   In addition, he hand delivered letters written by abutters (Joe Bove of Lot 259/258 1/2 and Joe Sullivan of Lot 256) indicating that they have no problem with the variance.   No deed was available.  Information on the existing septic system was scanty.   A motion was made and seconded to table the application with a request for the following:  1) Copy of the deed; 2)  Specifics on the location of the existing (old) septic system, including leach field; and 3)  Engineering report on what’s required to build over an old leach field.

Unanimously approved.

H.    CORRESPONDENCE AND ANNOUNCEMENTS:

1.     Future Meeting Dates as follows:

September 24, 1999
October 8, 1999

2.  The Chairman submitted for the correspondence file his response letter to Mr. Cervizzi regarding the Stansfield variance certificate.

I.  ADJOURNMENT:  A motion was made and seconded to adjourn the meeting at 10:02 PM. Unanimously approved.

Above Minutes approved at Meeting of September 24, 1999.

Respectfully submitted,

Bruce C. Nisula
Secretary, Board of Appeals