Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Subdivision Varian Ce topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Zoning board rejects lot-split request on private-way frontage grounds at Winslow Homer Road

Scarborough Zoning Board of Appeals · June 10, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board took criterion-by-criterion votes on a frontage variance to split a large parcel at 40 Winslow Homer Road and ultimately denied the request after members disagreed about uniqueness, feasible alternatives and economic injury tied to the private-way frontage issue.

Carrie Larfano, representing Larfano Family Builders on behalf of owner Jean Rose Gould, asked the Scarborough Zoning Board to permit a lot split at 40 Winslow Homer Road so the family could replace a smaller, dilapidated dwelling. Larfano said the parcel is large enough to create two conforming lots but that the entire private-way network is nonconforming under the ordinance and legal frontage cannot be counted for purposes of a lot split.

The board examined the eight statutory/practical-difficulty criteria in a structured manner. Staff explained the lot is legally existing but that a lot split would require legal frontage for each new lot — frontage the applicant argued cannot be provided without large road upgrades. Board members divided: several voted that granting the variance would not alter neighborhood character and would not have unreasonable environmental impacts, while others said the property was not demonstrably unique for the area and that applicants had not established that no feasible alternatives existed.

Members also debated whether a required economic-injury showing had been made: the applicant warned that bringing the private way up to public standards would be a significant expense; board members countered that the property remains usable in its current form and that family governance issues (fractional ownership) are not the board’s legal standard.

At the conclusion of criterion voting, the board took a roll-call vote on the motion to approve the lot-split variance; the motion failed. The board did not grant the requested frontage relief.