Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board tables Gordons' variance request for 16 Garrison Lane, asks for more evidence
Summary
The board tabled a hardship variance application to raise part of a roof at 16 Garrison Lane after members said the applicant did not provide enough documentary evidence on economic impact and alternatives; the board asked for photos, cost estimates and technical information and scheduled a return in July.
Devin Connell, the architect representing Peter and Elizabeth Gordon, asked the Scarborough Zoning Board for a standard hardship variance to raise the roof on a legally nonconforming 1935 house at 16 Garrison Lane so the unfinished attic could become habitable. Connell told the board the roof must be raised about 5½ feet to meet interior-code heights, that no footprint expansion is proposed, and that raising the roof avoids a much larger reconstruction he estimated could cost roughly $500,000.
Board members pressed for evidence that denial of the variance would deprive the property of a "reasonable return," the narrow statutory standard that governs hardship variances. Several members said they had not seen photos, invoices, contractor estimates or engineering reports in the record to substantiate claims of ongoing rot, ice-damming and repeated repairs. “I don’t feel that the presentation of significant economic injury was there,” Rebecca Hat said during deliberations.
Libby Gordon, who identified herself during public comment, described earlier rot and mold problems in the small section of the house and said the owners had previously rebuilt portions of the home. She said the requested work is intended to prevent continued deterioration and health risks in the house.
After discussion, several board members concluded that criteria two through four appeared likely to be met but that criterion one — showing the land “cannot yield a reasonable return” without the variance — lacked documentary support. The board voted to table the application to the July meeting and asked the applicants to provide clearer evidence (photographs of rot, contractor estimates, engineering documentation and demonstration that non-variance alternatives are infeasible). Staff and counsel will advise on any timing restrictions tied to statutory appeal windows.
