Skip Navigation
This table is used for column layout.
Welcome to the website for the town of Falmouth, Maine
Link for ResidentsLink for BusinessesLink for Online Services

On Our Site

Town of Falmouth, Maine
271 Falmouth Road
Falmouth, ME 04105
town@town.falmouth.me.us
(207) 781-5253

 
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 2008 MINUTES
1
TOWN OF FALMOUTH
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
TUESDAY, APRIL 22, 2008
These minutes are not verbatim
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kevin McCarthy, Fred Jay Meyer, Willie Audet and Stan Given.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Rich Bayer, Dennis Keeler, Jim Thibodeau
Kevin McCarthy served as Chairman.
The meeting opened at 6:30 pm.
Mr. Audet and Mr. Given were designated as voting members for the meeting.
1. Minutes
February 26, 2008 and March 25, 2008: Mr. Meyer moved to approve the minutes, subject to
later amendments by those members not present; Mr. Audet seconded. Passed 4-0.
Regular Agenda Items:
1. Travis Kinney C/O Gulfshore Design – representing Ed & Marie Manganello - Is
requesting approval under Section 6.2b to build a new attached garage at 176 Foreside Rd.
Parcel #U14-004, zoned “RA”.
Horace Horton, lawyer for the Manganello’s, presented the application on Mr. Kinney’s behalf.
The applicants are looking to extend the dwelling 48 feet, but they are keeping it on the same
plane, and not expanding into the setback area at all.
Public period opened. No public comment.
Mr. Audet said he was very impressed with the application.
Mr. Meyer asked a question about the site plan – the applicant indicated that it does not extend
any further into the setbacks, specifically into the rear setback, then the existing garage, but
there is a line on the drawing that seems to indicate a small infringement, and Mr. Meyer
wondered if that is that due to the line being in bold in the drawing.
Mr. Horton said that he believed that was so.
Mr. Given asked about the height of the garage addition, he wondered if it is substantially taller
than the rest of the house or if it is the same. He wanted to be sure that it is not above 35 feet.
Mr. Horton said that it is maybe a trifle higher than the house, but it is not above the standard.
Mr. Given said that it looked to be 1.5 stories, so it is unlikely to be above 35 feet.
Mr. McCarthy asked if the ridgeline should be lower to address Mr. Given’s concern.
Mr. Given was only concerned about it not being above 35 feet.
Mr. Audet observed that you would want a lower ridgeline going into the garage.
Mr. Given said that, proportionally, it looks like it matches the rest of the house.
2
Mr. McCarthy said that this is a terrific application. He asked Mr. Farris about the issue of
extension of the building towards the lot lines. This enlargement extends toward a lot line.
Mr. Farris said that Mr. Horton and he discussed this, and the designer is aware as well that
they cannot converge. There is a point of convergence along the line.
Mr. McCarthy said that the ordinance says that no part of the extension or enlargement shall
extend closer to a lot line. This is extending both rearwards and sideways.
Mr. Meyer thought that 6.2b 2 doesn’t apply here. He had always understood that to only apply
in the effect of a rear setback.
Mr. McCarthy thought this issue came up with another application recently.
Mr. Audet thought that there would be an issue if it was moving into the setback closer to a rear
neighbor. In this application they seem to be squaring off to the back portion.
Mr. McCarthy said that this extension is clearly out of the building envelope on the western side,
the way the ordinance reads it doesn’t differentiate which lot lines. In the past, he thought, it
has been interpreted to mean as long as it doesn’t move closer to the rear lot line.
Mr. McCarthy said the question is whether it has been the case in the past where, if you are
extending beyond the structure but it doesn’t create any setback issues, that it isn’t a concern.
He thinks that, as long as it isn’t extending and creating a setback violation it is okay.
Mr. Farris said that the practice has been that you could extend all the way to the 20 foot side
setback as long as there was no convergence of the property line and the line of the building.
Mr. Audet moved to approve the application under 6.2b.
Mr. Meyer seconded.
Application approved 4-0.
2. Kevin Roberts - Is requesting approval under Section 6.2a to enclose a deck at 209 Middle
Rd. Parcel #U25-037, zoned “RB”.
Mr. Roberts presented his application. They are looking to put a screen room on top of an
existing deck.
Mr. McCarthy asked if the deck extends off the back of the house.
Mr. Roberts said that it does.
Mr. McCarthy observed that there are 370 feet to the rear property line, plus or minus some.
Mr. Roberts said that was correct.
Mr. Farris said that this lot is non-conforming solely due to frontage. The building meets all
setbacks and minimum lot coverage.
Mr. Audet asked when the lot was created.
Mr. Roberts said he thought it was in the 1950’s sometime.
Mr. Audet asked if it the lot was created before zoning.
Mr. Farris said yes. It appears as though the first conveyance with the house was in 1971.
Mr. Meyer moved to approve the application under 6.2a.
Mr. Audet seconded.
Application approved 4-0.
3
Other issues:
The Leighton decision has been remanded to the Board for findings of fact and conclusions of
law.
Mr. McCarthy asked if there was anything that needed to be done at this meeting tonight.
Mr. Farris said that Mr. Plouffe would like to know what the Board would like to do. The
question is would the Board like Mr. Plouffe to draft findings from the minutes and present them
to the Board for approval and signature, or would they like to do it themselves.
Mr. McCarthy said that he would rather have Mr. Plouffe do it, as Mr. Plouffe has been working
with the case closely already and is familiar with the issues.
Mr. Meyer was inclined to have Mr. Plouffe do it.
Mr. Audet would rather have Mr. Plouffe do it as well.
Meeting adjourned 6:53 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Melissa Tryon
Recording Secretary

 

Virtual Towns & Schools Website