Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board refuses to reopen Westwood Avenue variance, upholds prior findings
Summary
The Scarborough Zoning Board voted 4–1 to deny a request to reconsider its earlier denial of a practical-difficulty frontage variance for 34 Westwood Ave, concluding the applicant did not present sufficient new evidence to alter the record.
Paul Johnson, who co-owns 34 Westwood Ave with Jennifer Allen, asked the Scarborough Zoning Board of Appeals to reconsider its prior denial of a practical-difficulty variance, arguing the board had relied on hypothetical alternatives and a too-narrow reading of the significant economic-injury standard. “We believe that are specific reasons why the board's decision may have turned on interpretation of practical difficulty standard that deserves reconsideration,” Johnson told the board.
The board spent more than an hour questioning Johnson and considering whether information in the applicant's resubmission — including references to pending state law changes and staff emails — constituted new evidence that would justify reopening the case. Johnson pointed to prior staff statements that alternatives (like a private way option) were not available under current ordinances and warned that relying on a future law would be improper for today's decision.
Several board members said they were sympathetic to aspects of the applicants’ case but not persuaded that any substantive new evidence had been submitted. Rebecca Hat said she was “two, three, and four are reasonable to say that they've met those standards, but the first one's tough for me,” referencing the statutory requirement that the land cannot yield a reasonable return without the variance. Chair Peter Finger and others expressed concern that allowing reconsideration merely to add facts after the original hearing could create a problematic precedent; David Boore said he had “not heard any new evidence at all tonight.”
After public comment was opened and closed with no intervening testimony, the board voted on the motion to reconsider. The motion failed on a roll-call vote, four to one. The board then approved the staff-prepared written findings for appeal 2799 by the same margin.
What happens next: the applicants were advised of their appeal options outside the board; the board proceeded to other agenda items. The denial of reconsideration preserves the original decision unless overturned through any external appeal process.
