Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Setback Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lewiston Board of Appeals denies setback variance for pool at 30 Beckett Street
Summary
The Lewiston Board of Appeals voted July 30 to deny Sandra Bishop’s request to reduce the front‑setback requirement for an existing above‑ground pool at 30 Beckett Street, finding the application failed several variance criteria including that the practical difficulty was not caused by the petitioner.
The Lewiston Board of Appeals on July 30 denied an application by Sandra Bishop of 30 Beckett Street to reduce the required front‑lot setback for an existing above‑ground swimming pool, concluding the petition did not satisfy multiple variance criteria required by city ordinance.
The board voted each required variance criterion separately. Members found that granting a variance would not change neighborhood character (criterion b) and would not unreasonably affect the natural environment or shoreland provisions (criteria e and f), but voted that the property was not unique and that the practical difficulty resulted from actions by the petitioner’s contractor and that feasible alternatives exist (criteria a, c and d). After the roll‑call on each criterion the board approved a motion to deny the variance.
City staff told the board the pool was originally permitted in June 2023 and that the permit site plan showed the pool located 20 feet from the front property line. Staff said the code’s performance standards require a 25‑foot front setback for swimming pools and that a subsequent inspection in April 2025 found the pool placed closer to the property line than the current 25‑foot requirement. In the staff memo, planning staff said, “we're concerned that not all of the criteria for a variance have been met, particularly, criteria a, c, and d.”
Applicant Sandra Bishop spoke at the hearing and said she did not learn the pool had been installed in the wrong location until she applied for a deck permit two years after installation. Bishop said she had paid about $25,000 into the pool project, including equipment and electrical work, and described the yard as landscaped in a way that she said leaves no feasible alternative location for the pool. Bishop said, “I didn't know the pools are not in the right place. I didn't learn about the pool being in the wrong place until I put in for the permit to the deck.”
The applicant's attorney, Ben Hartwell, urged the board to grant a variance, arguing the installation error was the contractor’s responsibility and that litigation would be costly. Hartwell said, “This would be variance would be the simplest, solution here.” He said the contractor (identified in the hearing as Rick's Pools) had not accepted responsibility after a demand letter.
The board followed the ordinance’s required process: members first voted that the application was complete, then recorded separate yes/no votes on each of the six variance criteria laid out in the city's zoning and land use code. For criterion a (uniqueness of the property) the board vote was unanimous “no.” For criterion b (no undesirable change to neighborhood character) the board vote was unanimous “yes.” For criterion c (practical difficulty not the result of petitioner action) the board voted “no.” For criterion d (no feasible alternative) the board voted “no.” For criterion e (no unreasonable adverse environmental effect) and criterion f (not in shoreland) the board voted “yes.”
After those recorded votes, a motion to deny the variance for 30 Beckett Street passed on a roll‑call vote. The board chair summarized the decision and expressed sympathy for the applicant’s situation but said the vote followed the ordinance and state statute as presented in staff materials.
City staff reminded the board that, under the ordinance, any variance granted would carry time limits (work must begin within six months and be substantially completed within one year unless extensions are granted) and that the board may limit the terms of a variance if it had been granted.
The board closed the public hearing, denied the variance, and then proceeded to routine minutes and adjournment. The applicant and her attorney were in the room during the decision and provided materials for the board’s consideration during the public portion of the meeting.
(Reporting note: ordinance citations and code excerpts in this article come from the staff memo read into the record at the July 30 hearing; the board’s votes were recorded on the record by roll call.)
