SOUTH BERWICK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
PUBLIC HEARING
FEBRUARY 27, 2003
7:00 P.M.
CALL TO ORDER
John Kareckas called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
John Kareckas (Chairman), David Kenny, Bonnie Gould, Kevin DeSchuytner, Alan Schalk and Joseph Rousselle (Code Enforcement Officer).
QUORUM
There was a quorum with 5 voting members. There were no conflicts of interest.
NEW BUSINESS
Case #04-03
Anglu Victor Rapa; 81 Brattle Street
Map 18 Lot 28; Variance Appeal
JURISDICTION
The Zoning Board of Appeals has jurisdiction pursuant to Section 140-76. Subsection B(2) of the South Berwick Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Rapa was denied a building permit as he failed to meet the dimensional requirements of Table B of the South Berwick Zoning Ordinance which requires 200 feet of road frontage per dwelling unit.
DETERMINATION OF STANDING
The appellant is Anglu Victor Rapa, owner of property known as Map 18 Lot 28 located at 81 Brattle Street. Mr. and Mrs. Rapa represented themselves.
OTHER PARTIES TO THE ACTION
Abutters in attendance: Jack Hayes of 89 Old South Road, Map 18 Lot 24; Robert Teague of 83 Old South Road, Map 18
Lot 34; John and Pauline Ford of 19 Oldfields Road, Map 18 Lot 30.
TESTIMONY, QUESTIONING AND DISCUSSION OF EVIDENCE
Mr. Rapa is seeking a variance so he does not have to pave a road to town standards. He currently owns a two family and would like to convert the property back to its original state, a single family. He then wants to build another single family home in the back of his property. He meets the lot size requirements but does not meet the road frontage requirements. In order for him to be in conformance he would need to pave a road sixteen feet wide to make up the difference. Mr. Rapa passed out pictures of the property showing the many improvements made to the property and told how he truly cares about the property. He is asking the Board to waive the ordinance and allow him have a ten foot wide driveway the length of 400 feet, which he feels is adequate to service a single family residence. Mr. Rapa also showed a tax map
with lots near his property, most of which are non-conforming. Mr. Rapa is willing to have a limitation on the deed that the driveway would never be extended to service more homes. He would like to keep the quaintness of the property as is. He feels if a variance is not granted it will take away from the character of the area.
Joseph Rousselle, the Code Enforcement Officer then offered testimony. He agreed that because of lot configuration the Town does allow you to create road frontage. After that frontage is met, you can proceed with a driveway.
Jack Hayes, an abutter wasn’t sure that Mr. Rapa had enough acreage. Mr. Kareckas explained an acre is rounded to 40,000 sq. feet. Mr. Hayes also had concerns about how many units would be put in and also a concern that the proposed driveway is right by an intersection. Robert Teague, also an abutter, wanted to clarify the application process. He wanted to make sure Mr. Rapa only needed a regular building permit and not a Major Site Plan Review. Mr. Rousselle told him no site plan review was required. Mr. Rapa had a survey done to show they have enough acreage. Another abutter, Pauline Ford, offered testimony. She mentioned that 20 years ago when Mr. Rapa proposed changing the then single family into a two-family she didn’t have a problem with it. She has had no objections to what he has done so far, however,
she feels a little more uneasy about this situation. Mr. Ford then mentioned how the driveway would come very close to the building and also mentioned the terrible traffic problem at the intersection already.
Close public hearing at 8:30 p.m.
DELIBERATION
The Board discussed the evidence and testimony presented to them.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1) Appellant is Anglu Victor Rapa, owner of property.
2) Property address is 81 Brattle Street, South Berwick, Maine.
3) The appellant’s mailing address is 3 Goodwin Road, Kittery Point, Maine, 03905
4) Property is Map 18 Lot 28.
5) Property is located in the R3 Zone.
6) There were abutters in attendance who offered testimony; Jack Hayes of 89 Old South Road, Robert Teague of 83 Old South Road, John and Pauline Ford of 19 Oldfields Road.
7) Case # 04-03.
8) The Board has jurisdiction pursuant to Section 140-76. Subsection B(2) of the South Berwick Zoning Ordinance.
9) Mr. and Mrs. Rapa represented themselves.
10) Mr. Rapa presented four exhibits:
A# 1 - Statement with 2 photos
A#9- A series of photos referencing other streets in town
A#3- An excerpt of a Zoning map indicating the property and its orientation to streets
#4- Survey by Easterly Survey stamped by Kenneth Markley dated 05/01/02
Standard Survey File Plan Book 278 Page 48. recorded 02/03/03.
11) Mr. Rapa is seeking a variance from access standards to create a 10 foot wide road. Refer to Section 140-70, Subsection I, Appendix C – Private Roads pg. 149, Section 3 A & B.
12) The existing property has a building with 2 dwelling units.
13) Existing property is a non-conforming lot or record with respect to frontage and based on review of survey, front setback.
14) In testimony, the appellant referred to A#3 to demonstrate other non-conforming lots in the neighborhood.
15) The appellant read from A#1 as statement into record.
16) The appellant wishes to maintain historic nature of neighborhood and feels 16 ft. paved road requirement is not consistent with balance of neighborhood.
17) The appellant referred to ZBA application when asked about the hardship criteria.
18) The Code Enforcement Officer made presentation on basis of denial of permit application and answered questions with respect to frontage as would apply to a conforming division of the property.
19) Testimony was given by the appellant citing the unique situation of returning the existing duplex to a single family use while creating one dwelling unit on the proposed property to the rear.
20) The R-3 Zone requires 300 feet of frontage for a 2 family dwelling.
21) The existing frontage for 81 Brattle Street is 170 feet.
22) The property in question has 164,460 sq. ft. as referenced in A#4.
23) Abutter John Ford testified to potential traffic hazard.
24) Abutter Pauline Ford spoke as to aesthetic and environmental concerns.
25) Abutter Jack Hayes raised questions on required sq. footage, traffic and the number of units.
26) Abutter Robert Teague raised questions about the building permit application and the CEO responded by stating
his authority for granting a permit for up to 2 units if ordinance criteria is met.
27) When the abutters had a chance to speak, none spoke pro or con with respect to the proposed variance.
There was a unanimous consent to accept facts.
JUSTIFICATION OF VARIANCE
1) The land in question cannot yield a reasonable return unless the variance is granted.
Kevin DeSchuytner motioned that the land in question cannot yield a reasonable return unless the variance is granted. Alan Schalk seconded motion. 0 in favor, 5 opposed. Motion failed 0 – 5.
2) The need for a variance is due to the unique circumstances of the property and not to the general conditions
in the neighborhood.
Kevin DeSchuytner motioned that 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. 0 in favor, 5 opposed. Motion failed 0 – 5.
3) The granting of a variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Bonnie Gould motioned the granting of a variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Kevin DeSchuytner seconded motion. Motion passed 5 – 0.
4) The hardship is not the result of action taken by the appellant or a prior owner.
Alan Schalk motioned the hardship is not the result of action taken by the appellant or a prior owner. Bonnie Gould seconded motion. Motion passed 5 – 0.
There was a unanimous consent to accept fact.
CONCLUSION
Two of the criteria for undue hardship were not met, namely reasonable return and unique circumstances of the property.
Kevin DeSchuytner motioned the facts as presented do not meet the criteria necessary for the granting of a variance. David Kenny seconded motion. All were in favor, motion passed.
DECISION
The Board found, based on the facts and conclusion, that the variance is denied.
Bonnie Gould motioned to accept Decision. Alan Schalk seconded motion. All were in favor, motion passed.
MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING
David Kenny motioned to table the minutes of the previous meeting until everyone gets a chance to review completely. Alan Schalk seconded motion. All were in favor, motion passed.
CORRESPONDENCE
The Town received a letter from William Dale, Russell Tarason’s lawyer, requesting that the Board reconsider its decision on Case #03-03. David Kenny motioned Mr. Dale’s request for reconsideration be denied based upon the lack of testimony by Mr. Noel at the 02/13/03 public hearing. Alan Schalk seconded motion. The Board voted in favor of denying the request 4-0,
1 abstained.
Alan Schalk motioned to adjourn. Bonnie Gould seconded. All were in favor. Meeting ended at 10:20 pm.
| 
