Scarborough zoning board tables variance request to replace Higgins Beach camp

Kevin Coin, who identified himself as the owner of a camp at Higgins Beach since 1992, asked the Scarborough Zoning Board of Appeals for front- and rear-setback variances so he could tear down a deteriorating 1900-era structure and rebuild a two- to two-and-a-half-story house on the same footprint.

Board staff explained the lot is nonconforming and that Coin’s appeal properly seeks a practical-difficulty variance rather than a standard hardship variance. Staff and several board members noted key site constraints: one side of the lot is roughly 30 feet deep, the on-site chamber (infiltrator) septic system was installed in 1991, and the lot’s buildable envelope is restricted by required septic setbacks. Staff said the chamber system can generally be replaced in the same footprint after “scarification,” which affects where any garage could be placed.

Board members focused on two practical issues: precise measurement of setbacks (whether the relevant setback should be to the foundation or to the closest exterior element, such as a soffit/overhang) and whether a detached garage proposal would meet the practical-difficulty criteria. Coin told the board he had included a 16-by-? garage in his plans that would meet side-setback requirements but would still require variances for front and rear setbacks; he said the garage could be attached if that made approval easier. Coin also described rotten floors and other structural deterioration as reasons to replace the house.

Given inconsistencies between the dimensions shown on Coin’s submitted plans and the measurements the board needs to record for a variance (staff emphasized the setback must be measured to the closest part of the building for the deed and permit), members advised him to revise and clarify the application. One board member said that while rebuilding within the existing footprint is often acceptable in nonconforming situations, adding a detached garage that increases nonconformity could be a stumbling block. The board therefore voted to table the application to allow the applicant to provide corrected dimensions and to reconsider the garage option.

The board’s action was procedural: the members moved to table the item and voted unanimously to do so. When the applicant returns, the board said it could consider the primary structure and garage separately if he prefers. The board also recommended the applicant obtain professional measurements or engineering verification before re-submitting to avoid inaccurately recorded setbacks.

The variance remains pending; the board asked Coin to provide corrected dimensioning (measurements to the closest part of the structure, including soffits/overhangs) and clarified the replacement structure would not add bedrooms or materially increase septic loading as presented. No public comments or letters were received during the hearing.