Town of Scarborough Zoning Board of Appeals

October 9, 2013 AGENDA

1. Call to Order (7:00 P. M.) 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes (August 14, 2013) 4. Appeals a. Appeal No. 2499 – A Variance Appeal by Robert and Carol Carpenter, 193 Spurwink Road, Assessor’s Map R97 Parcel 23, to construct a garage addition 5 feet from the right side property line and 38.8 feet from the front property line in the R-F Zone b. Appeal No. 2500 – A Limited Reduction of Yard Size Appeal by Robert and Carol Carpenter, 193 Spurwink Road, to construct a rear addition 47 feet from the front property line in the R-F Zone c. Appeal No. 2501 – A Variance Appeal by Summerwind Cottage, LLC, 5 Virdap Street, Assessor’s Map U1 Parcel 52, to demolish and reconstruct a house 1.83 feet from the south property line and 17.31 feet from the front property line in the R-4 Zone d. Appeal No. 2502 – A Practical Difficulty Variance Appeal by Richard and Kristen Hartz, 26 Ashton Street, Assessor’s Map U2 Parcel 64, to demolish and rebuild a house 22 feet from the front property line, 10.04 feet from the south side property line in the R-4 Zone 5. Zoning Board Comments 6. Adjournment

Town of Scarborough Zoning Board of Appeals

October 9, 2013 MINUTES

Members Present

Staff

Mr. Crockett (arrived 7:10 P. M.) Mr. Dillon Mr. Macisso Mr. Maron Mr. Richard Mr. Stark

Mr. Longstaff, Zoning Administrator Ms. Logan Recording Secretary

1. Call to Order Mr. Maroon called the meeting to order at 7:05 P. M. 2. Roll Call The Recording Secretary called the roll; Mr. Crockett and Mr. Loisel were absent. Mr. Crockett arrived at 7:10 P. M. Mr. Maroon authorized Mr. Macisso to vote. 3. Approval of Minutes (August 14, 2013) Mr. Dillon moved to approve the minutes of August 14, 2013; Mr. Stark seconded. Voted 5-0 4. Appeals a. Appeal No. 2499 – A Variance Appeal by Robert and Carol Carpenter, 193 Spurwink Road, Assessor’s Map R97 Parcel 23, to construct a garage addition 5 feet from the right side property line and 38.8 feet from the front property line in the R-F Zone b. Appeal No. 2500 – A Limited Reduction of Yard Size Appeal by Robert and Carol Carpenter, 193 Spurwink Road, to construct a rear addition 47 feet from the front property line in the R-F Zone Mr. Maroon explained that these two appeals had been approved in November 2012 but were about to expire because construction had to begin within six months and needed to be extended. He suggested that the Board address the appeals together and to use the previous appeals as a base. Mr. Craig Cooper, of Rainbow Construction, explained that when he applied for a building permit he learned that they had missed the time limit and had not registered the variances with the Registry of Deeds. He stated that the appellants were ready to retire to this property next year; he stated that there had been no changes to the original plan. He stated that he had submitted a letter from the closest neighbor who was supportive. Mr. Maroon opened the public hearing; no one spoke for or against the appeal. Mr. Stark read a letter in favor of the appeal from Janet Stanford, of 191 Spurwink Road. Mr. Maroon closed the public hearing.

1

Mr. Maroon moved to approve the extension of Appeal No. 2499 for six months as previously approved; Mr. Dillon seconded. Voted 5-0 Mr. Maroon moved to approve the extension of Appeal No. 2500 for six months as previously approved; Mr. Dillon seconded. Voted 5-0 c. Appeal No. 2501 – A Variance Appeal by Summerwind Cottage, LLC, 5 Virdap Street, Assessor’s Map U1 Parcel 52, to demolish and reconstruct a house 1.83 feet from the south property line and 17.31 feet from the front property line in the R-4 Zone Mr. Shawn Frank, of Sebago Technics, stated that they would slide back the new house which would give them 17.31 feet to the front steps, a 10 foot setback to the north side line for back steps and 1.83 feet from the south side line. He stated that the new setbacks were more conforming than the existing setbacks. Mr. Frank stated that the existing structure was built in 1900 and had severe structural and mold issues. He stated that the new structure would have a smaller footprint than the existing home but would have a second story. Mr. Maroon noted that the Variance Appeal standards were strict but there were safety reasons for a building to be torn down. Mr. Frank stated that they met the 75 foot setback from the high tide mark which was how they based the placement of the structure. Mr. Longstaff explained that it was the Town’s policy that loose stone steps would be considered part of the landscaping and would not require a setback; he stated that the 10 foot setback in the rear would allow for stairs other than stone steps. Mr. Stark and Mr. Frank addressed the criteria as presented in writing. Mr. Maroon opened the public hearing; no one spoke for or against the appeal; Mr. Maroon closed the public hearing. Mr. Stark commended the applicant for the smaller footprint and for meeting the Shoreland Zone setback. Mr. Macisso noted that many of the homes in the beach areas did not meet the setbacks; he stated that moving back from the property lines took away from the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Dillon moved to approve the appeal as presented; Mr. Dillon seconded. Voted 5-0 d. Appeal No. 2502 – A Practical Difficulty Variance Appeal by Richard and Kristen Hartz, 26 Ashton Street, Assessor’s Map U2 Parcel 64, to demolish and rebuild a house 22 feet from the front property line, 10.04 feet from the south side property line in the R-4 Zone Mr. Walter Wilson, of The Design Company, noted that there was an existing cottage and a garage/shed in the rear which would be removed with the square footage added to the proposed home. He stated that the existing cottage could not sustain the addition of a second floor because the integrity of the structure was not good and the crawl space was only three feet high and wet. He stated that it would cost $34,000 to $44,000 to save the building so they proposed rebuilding on the existing foundation. Mr. Maroon confirmed that the second building would be removed and the square footage added to the new building. Mr. Wilson stated that the existing square footage was 1,312 and would be 1,306 square feet when the new structure was built. Mr. Longstaff noted that there would be a slight improvement in setbacks.

2

Mr. Stark and Mr. Wilson addressed the criteria as presented in writing. Mr. Maroon opened the public hearing. Mr. Stark read a letter from Raymond and Barbara Belicose. Mr. Raymond Belicose, of 28 Ashton Street, the abutter to the north side, stated that they had no objection to the appeal but their driveway ran on the property line and the house would be five feet from their driveway which they would have to use all winter during construction. He stated that the area was tight and their concern was safety of the driveway and their cars and for their fence. Mr. Maroon stated that the appellant should work with the neighbors to ensure that the property is not disturbed. Ms. Carolyn Krahn, daughter of Mrs. Cousins of 24 Ashton Street, stated that the Hartz cottage sat on her mother’s property line and her concern was that the Hartz cottage had been rented on a weekly basis. She stated that the integrity of the beach was eroding with oversized homes taking up all the buildable area with disregard for green space. She stated that she was concerned about the effect on the character of the beach; she stated that the plans were lovely but asked why the appellant could not stay within the original setback. Mr. Maroon explained that there were building envelopes which could be used and most of the homes in this area did not fit and there was a tradition that if one stayed within the footprint of the original house, the Board would work with the appellant. He stated that it was typical that new homes were built up to two and a half stories within the footprint. Mr. Maroon stated that most of the buildings at Higgins Beach were anything but historical, were old and dangerous, and people had done a good job of rebuilding; he stated that people had the right to rent their properties. Mr. Longstaff noted that the accessory building was more offending with regard to setbacks. Ms. Krahn stated that the new building would be two stories whereas the existing building was only one story. Mr. Maroon stated that he believed this was a better use of the space and cleaned up the site with the razing of the second structure. To a question from Ms. Krahn, Mr. Wilson replied that he had not calculated the total square footage but the size of the existing house would not be doubled and only about 500 feet would be added. Mr. Macisso noted that the Board had strict regulations to follow and any design complaints should be taken to the Town Council. Mr. Maroon closed the public hearing. Mr. Maroon noted that the Cousins house was 2.5 feet from this property and the rear building, which was closer to that home, would be moved toward the front on the new house. Mr. Wilson explained that they had centered the house on the property; he stated that the setbacks would meet the Limited Reduction of Yard Size requirements but because of the existing garage the Practical Difficulty Variance had to be used. Mr. Maroon allowed Ms. Krahn to speak; she stated that moving the garage square footage to the house would put the two neighboring houses next to each other. Mr. Wilson stated that there would be a bedroom and a stairwell on the side of the house near the neighbor. Mr. Richard noted that to maintain a one story house next to the Cousins house would be more in keeping with the Practical Difficulty Appeal. Mr. Maroon stated that the question was whether there were other alternatives; he stated that the building had been centered and should meet the needs of both neighbors Mr. Wilson explained that there was a bump-out at the rear of the house and the addition was attached to the bump-out; he stated that there were now four bedrooms, including the one in the garage, and the new home would have a total of four bedrooms. He stated that the height of the old building is 21 feet and the new building would be 24 feet high; he stated that creating second stories happened all the time at Higgins Beach and not much else could be done on the small lots. He stated that he believed this appeal met all the criteria because it would be comparable to the neighborhood.

3

To a question from Mr. Crockett, Mr. Longstaff replied that if the setbacks were met, removing the garage would allow a second story without an appeal. To a question from Mr. Longstaff, Mr. Wilson replied that he did not design the additional space behind the structure within the setbacks because to fit those setbacks the building would have to be only 18 feet wide and extend into the back yard. He stated that with this configuration all the buildings would line up for a wide backyard effect; he stated that they did not make the structure smaller because they would not have the needed floor space. Mr. Macisso stated that this was action taken by the applicant. Mr. Maroon stated that this could have been two appeals by moving the garage more in conformance, but the issue was the concern of the neighbor. Mr. Maroon addressed Limited Reduction of Yard Size criteria but noted that that appeal could be used only for an addition or a nonconforming vacant lot and not for a lot where a structure was being removed. Mr. Crockett confirmed that the existing frame would not support a second story and the electrical and plumbing systems were patched and in poor shape. Mr. Wilson stated that the house could be a fire hazard and the advantage of new structures at Higgins Beach was that the community would be much safer. Mr. Crockett stated that he liked opening up the back yards. Mr. Wilson stated that the character of the neighborhood was changing but he tried to maintain the cottage feel. He stated that he would have applied for a Limited Reduction appeal if they were not removing a building. To a question from Mr. Dillon, Mr. Wilson replied that the Belicose house was higher and the house across the street was 15 feet higher than this proposed house and both were larger. Mr. Richard stated that he was in favor of tearing down houses that were in poor condition but did not think all the possibilities had been exhausted and the structure could be moved back. Mr. Wilson stated that that would ruin the circulation plan and change the roof line which was designed to not look like a long extension; he stated that swinging the roof around would gain only four feet so it did not seem practical to intrude on the open space. Mr. Macisso agreed that all alternatives had not been exhausted and the structure could be redesigned to eliminate the problems with the neighbor. Mr. Richard stated that he did not think all the criteria were met. Mr. Stark stated that he empathized with the neighbors but this was a terrific project and bringing the shed space more into conformance in the middle of the lot was the fairest way to do it; he stated that a little box building would not fit within the neighborhood and would bring the price of the other homes down. He stated that he was in favor of this project the way it stood. Mr. Dillon stated that he agreed with Mr. Stark and felt this met the criteria. Mr. Crockett stated that he thought the design was the best for not breaking up the backyard and that the structure would meet the current codes. To a question from Mr. Maroon, Mr. Wilson replied that coverage of the site was maxed out so he could not leave the garage on the site; he stated that this was the fifth layout he had done and was the most practical. Mr. Dillon moved to approve the appeal as presented; Mr. Stark seconded. Mr. Maroon and the Board addressed the criteria as findings of fact as follows: 1. The Board agreed that this criteria was met and voted 5 to 0. 2. Mr. Macisso stated that this would help the neighborhood; Mr. Stark stated that the changes would be more conforming; Mr. Dillon agreed. Mr. Maroon agreed that this would be a positive change and the advantage of getting rid of a possible rental in the rear cleaned up the issue. The Board agreed 5 to 0. 3. The Board agreed that the existing house predated the setback regulations and voted 5 to 0.

4

4. Mr. Macisso stated that tearing down the garage was a positive element and there was no other feasible alternative. Mr. Stark stated that razing the building would bring it up to code and there was no feasible alternative for the added space of the garage; Mr. Dillon and Crockett agreed. Mr. Maroon noted that the demolition triggered this appeal and gave uniform setbacks in the rear; he stated that he believed Mr. Wilson’s contention that other alternatives did not work. Voted 4 to1 5. Mr. Macisso and Mr. Stark agreed that the new structure would be more in conformance with the changes in the neighborhood. Mr. Dillon and Mr. Crockett agreed that this would be more conforming with the codes; Mr. Maroon thought the best thing was getting rid of the rear building. Voted 5 to 0 6. Mr. Stark stated that making the garage part of the house would allow for better drainage; the Board agreed and voted 5 to 0. Mr. Wilson noted that the long driveway would be grassed. 7. Not applicable. To a question from Mr. Stark, Mr. Wilson replied that the appellant would like to begin construction in five or six weeks and be done by spring; he stated that daily construction would begin no earlier than 7:00 A. M. and would end by 4:30 P. M. Mr. Maroon moved to amend the motion to include the requirement that safety steps be taken on all sides of the property to ensure that there be no damage to the neighbors’ property and that any damage be repaired immediately; and that external work be completed by June 1, 2014. Mr. Dillon seconded. Voted 5-0 5. Zoning Board Comments Mr. Longstaff noted that there was a training session for Zoning Board members in Saco on October 23, 2013. Mr. Maroon noted that SEDCO held its Annual Meeting last night and talked about growth and management policies; he stated that Scarborough had been rated No. 1 in Maine for its tech savvy abilities. He stated that there was a lot of growth moving forward and Scarborough had more jobs than before the recession.. 6. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 P. M.

5