SOUTH BERWICK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
PUBLIC HEARING
JUNE 10, 2003
7:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER
John Kareckas called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL
John Kareckas (Chairman), Kevin DeSchuytner, Alan Schalk, Bonnie Gould, David Kenny, and Joseph Rousselle (Code Enforcement Officer).
QUORUM
There was a quorum with 5 voting members.
OLD BUSINESS
Continuation of Case #05-03
Russell Tarason; 77 Norton Street
Map 31 Lot 133; Variance Appeal
JURISDICTION
John Kareckas sent a letter to the Town Manager requesting an opinion from the Town’s Attorney whether or not the Board had jurisdiction to hear this case. Joan M. Fortin responded that the Board clearly does have jurisdiction to hear and decide the variance request. John Kareckas still questioned their authority because he saw nothing pertaining to unit density. Bonnie Gould motioned the Board hear the case. Alan Schalk seconded the motion. Four Board members were in favor, one opposed. Motion passed.
FINDINGS OF FACT (Continued)
1 – 17 See minutes of May 1, 2003 meeting
18) Town’s Attorney recommended hearing the variance on the basis of lot size criteria – reference May 12, 2003 Fortin letter.
19) Code Enforcement Officer made reference to Planning Board minutes (CEO #3) of 3/7/00.
20) Attachments in A#1 – Plumbing permit was made on 1/11/00
Plumbing inspection was made on 1/28/00
Building permit application was made on 7/12/00
Demolition permit was made on 6/19/01
21) The appellant was present at the Planning Board meeting of 3/7/00.
22) CEO #1 establishes a non-conforming building and a conforming 2 family residence.
23) The floor plans in A#3 were never clearly established as a part of the plumbing permit application.
John Kareckas motioned to accept Findings of Fact #1 through #23. Alan Schalk motioned to accept. Kevin DeSchuytner seconded. All were in favor. Motion passed.
DELIBERATION
The Board discussed the evidence and testimony presented to them.
JUSTIFICATION OF VARIANCE
1) The land in question cannot yield a reasonable return unless the variance is granted.
Kevin DeSchuytner motioned the land in question cannot yield a reasonable return unless the variance is granted. Bonnie Gould seconded. 0 in favor, 5 opposed – Motion failed.
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 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. 4 in favor, 1 opposed – Motion passed.
3) The granting of a variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Kevin DeSchuytner motioned the granting of a variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Bonnie Gould seconded. 3 in favor, 2 opposed – Motion passed.
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. Kevin DeSchuytner seconded. 1 in favor – 4 opposed – Motion failed.
CONCLUSION
The application for variance failed to meet the criteria for A & D under Sec. 140-76. B(2) of the South Berwick Zoning Ordinance.
Kevin DeSchuytner motioned to accept conclusion. Alan Schalk seconded. All were in favor. Motion passed.
DECISION
Alan Schalk motioned the granting of a variance is denied based on the Findings of Fact and the Conclusion. David Kenny seconded. All were in favor. Motion passed.
ADJOURNMENT
Bonnie Gould motioned to adjourn. Alan Schalk seconded. All in favor. Meeting adjourned at 8:30 pm.
| 
