Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Portland zoning board denies variance for 30 Veil Street deck expansion
Summary
The Portland Zoning Board of Appeals on April 2 denied a request from homeowner Andrew Johnson to expand a rear deck into the 25-foot shoreland setback at 30 Veil Street, after neighbors objected and the board concluded the variance standards were not met. The denial followed public comment and deliberation on alternatives and hardship criteria.
The Portland Zoning Board of Appeals denied a request for a shoreland‑setback variance for 30 Veil Street at its April 2 meeting, concluding that the applicant had not met the legal standards for relief. The board voted to deny the variance after hearing testimony from the homeowner and an abutting neighbor.
Applicant Andrew Johnson told the board that shoreline erosion and failing footings left his rear egress constrained and unsafe. "How do I get the safest, most stable platform for egress from the second door?" he said, describing the platform as necessary to provide a safe exit from the ground floor. Johnson said a contractor advised moving pilings to firmer fill and that the revised platform ended up roughly four feet larger toward the water than the prior structure.
Neighbor Rachel Walls, who said her family has lived on the abutting property since 1977, urged denial. She told the board she and other neighbors had worked with engineers, the city and the state on shoreline protections and said the applicant "blatantly disregard[ed] the need for permits for many projects," adding, "I really do hope that you will not approve this appeal."
During deliberations the board focused on the city's four‑part variance standard for shoreland setbacks, including whether strict application of the ordinance deprived the owner of a reasonable return, whether the hardship was unique to the lot, whether granting the variance would alter the essential character of the locality, and whether the hardship resulted from actions by the applicant or prior owners. Planning staff told the board the property lies inside the city's 25‑foot setback from the highest astronomical tide and noted that a historic permit in the file showed a 6‑by‑10 platform dating to 1941.
Board members were divided on whether safety concerns justified the expansion and on whether feasible alternatives existed, such as rebuilding to the grandfathered footprint, moving the door, or adding a second‑floor egress. Several members said the record showed options the applicant had not pursued; others noted the property's small size and proximity to the water made certain alternatives difficult.
After discussion the board voted to deny the variance. The chair observed that "the hardship variance in the shoreland zone is probably the highest bar possible to clear," and the board announced the denial and closed the public portion of the hearing. The board recorded the vote in open session and completed administrative sign‑off.
Appeals from decisions of the board may be filed in superior court pursuant to state statute, as noted on the record. The applicant and neighbors were thanked for their testimony; the board then adjourned.
