SOUTH BERWICK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
PUBLIC HEARING
SEPTEMBER 24, 2002
7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
Jack Kareckas, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Jack Kareckas (Chairman), Bonnie Gould, Kevin DeSchuytner, Alan Schalk, Dave Kenny, and Joe Rousselle (Code Enforcement Officer).
QUORUM
There was a quorum with five voting members present. None of the members had a conflict of interest.
NEW BUSINESS
Case # 07-02
Paul and Patricia Audet; 26 Middle Street
Map 25 Lot 28; Change of use and variance request
JURISDICTION
The Zoning Board of Appeals has jurisdiction pursuant to language used in Section 140-76.B2-B3 of the South Berwick Zoning Ordinance. The appellant was denied a permit because he failed to meet setback requirements.
DETERMINATION OF STANDING
The appellants, Paul and Patricia Audet, are the owners of the property known as Map 25 Lot 28, located at 26 Middle Street. The Audets are representing themselves.
OTHER PARTIES TO THE ACTION
Abutters in attendance: Melanie Hughes and Aaron Rousseau of 12 Park Street and Rachel and John Mersereau of 28 Middle Street.
TESTIMONY, QUESTIONING, AND DISCUSSION OF EVIDENCE
Mr. Audet's building permit application was denied because he is "changing use" from an accessory building to a dwelling unit and does not meet setback requirements. Mr. Audet explained how he would like to eliminate the existing dwelling and turn the existing garage into the primary residence. He mentioned he is revising the proposal and now does not want to turn the existing dwelling into a carriage house, he would just totally eliminate it. The existing house is 14' X 31' and is only 6 feet from the right side property line, which makes it nonconforming already. The house currently has two bedrooms, having to go through one bedroom to get to the other with only 5 ? foot high ceilings. Mr. Audet feels the existing dwelling is too small and too close to property line to make needed
improvements. The existing garage is less nonconforming than the house and would allow for more square footage. Bonnie Gould asked Mr. Audet if he recently purchased this property. Mr. Audet answered yes.
The appellants were having a hard time making the case to the Board concerning the four criteria they must meet. Kevin DeSchuytner motioned to take a five minute break so the Audets could rethink their case. Bonnie Gould seconded the motion. All were in favor.
The Board reconvened after five minutes. Mrs. Audet then expressed her concerns. The house only has a 6 foot right side setback. The abutting house to the right is only 4 feet from its property line. Mrs. Audet mentioned that she feels this could be a fire hazard not only for themselves but also for the neighbors. The existing dwelling also contains mold and would have to be demolished which is why the previous owner could not live there and only used it for storage.
Rachel and John Mersereau, abutters, also commented on the aesthetics of the home being an eyesore. They also are concerned about fire and definitely support the Audets.
Joe Rousselle, Code Enforcement Officer also offered testimony. He mentioned that the change of use on the property comes under the new Zoning Ordinance requirements. Based on that the property needs a 15 foot setback.
Mr. Kareckas made note of the exhibits submitted:
Exhibit #A1 - includes 5 pages: the application, a letter explaining the nature of the variance, a sketch of the existing dwelling and prospective drawings.
Exhibit #A2 - The Building Permit Application
Exhibit #A3 - Photographs, elevations and floor plans (not building carriage house now).
Exhibit #A4 - Warranty deed
Public Hearing closed at 8:10 pm.
DELIBERATION
The Board discussed the evidence and testimony presented to them.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The appellants are Paul and Patricia Audet, owners of 26 Middle Street, South Berwick, ME, Map 25 Lot 28 located in the R-1 Zone.
2. A public hearing was held on September 24, 2002.
3. Paul and Patricia Audet made testimony.
4. Melanie Hughes, Aaron Rousseau, Rachel and John Mersereau were present.
5. The Mersereaus made statement that the existing building is an eyesore and a fire hazard and are in favor of the variance.
6. Appellants presented four exhibits.
7. Application was revised from original plan. Appellant is deleting carriage house.
8. Proposal calls for change of use which makes it non-conforming. Garage has 11-foot side setback and requires 15-foot setback.
9. Existing structure has approximately 6-foot right side setback, approximately 15-foot front setback to Middle Street, approximately 10-foot left side setback (viewing from Middle Street)
10. The Code Enforcement Officer was present and made comments to the nature of the property and concurs with appellant as to the nature of the setbacks.
11. Existing lot has nonconforming frontage of 42 feet versus 100 feet requirement.
There was a unanimous consent of 5 - 0 to accept Findings of Fact.
JUSTIFICATION OF VARIANCE
1.) The land in question cannot yield a reasonable return unless the variance is granted. Appellant answer: It would be too expensive to make it conform. The mold is a real issue and would require the destruction of the property. Also fire safety is an issue along with economic risk. Jack Kareckas motioned the land in question cannot yield a reasonable return unless the variance is granted. Kevin DeSchuytner seconded the motion. All were in favor, motion passed unanimously.
2.) The need for a variance is due to the unique circumstances of the property and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood. Appellant answer: The existing garage is less nonconforming than the house and would allow for more square footage. Kevin DeSchuytner motioned the need for a variance is due to the unique circumstances of the property and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood. Alan Schalk seconded motion. All were in favor, motion passed unanimously.
3.) The granting of a variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Appellant answer: The granting of a variance would improve the appearance of the neighborhood. Alan Schalk motioned that the granting of a variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Dave Kenny seconded motion. All were in favor, motion passed unanimously.
4.) The hardship is not the result of action taken by the appellant or a prior owner. Appellant answer: The condition has existed since the house was first built over 100 years ago. Alan Schalk motioned that the hardship is not the result of action taken by the appellant or a prior owner. Bonnie Gould seconded motion. All were in favor, motion passed unanimously.
CONCLUSION
Kevin DeSchuytner motioned the variance is justified. Alan Schalk seconded motion. All were in favor. Motion passed unanimously.
DECISION
Based on evidence presented at the Public Hearing, Findings of Fact and Conclusion, the variance was granted by unanimous consent.
OTHER
There was a discussion between the Board members on drawing up something for future appellants explaining in more detail the criteria they must meet for justification of a variance.
The Board discussed the minutes from the previous meeting. There were a few changes made concerning determination of standing, the owners name should be placed here. Also, Draft Findings of Fact needed to be changed to Findings of Fact.
Kevin DeSchuytner motioned to accept amendments of the minutes. Bonnie Gould seconded motion. All were in favor, motion passed unanimously.
Jack Kareckas motioned to adjourn meeting. Alan Schalk seconded motion. Meeting adjourned at 8:50 pm.
| 
