Portland Zoning Board denies variance for 28 Waterville Street porch enclosure

[0:00] Speaker A (unidentified): Or they can think at what level of research. [0:04] Speaker B (unidentified): They're like the sundial. [0:08] Speaker C (unidentified): Like before trains from town have their own time. [0:14] Speaker D (unidentified): Right, that's true. It was all trying to get the trains, that's it. [0:22] Speaker C (unidentified): You're officially at six. We are. [0:25] Speaker D (unidentified): You want me to give Ryan. Oh, yeah, sorry. There he is. You're all the way down. Good [0:48] Speaker C (unidentified): evening, ladies and gentlemen. I welcome you to the August 6th, 2026 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals at the City of Portland. The Zoning Board of Appeals will conduct this meeting by hybrid methods in accordance with the requirements of 1MRS Section 403B in the Zoning Board of Appeals Remote Participation Policy. This meeting is being conducted using Zoom. Before we begin the public hearing, I would like to read you our rules of procedure. The Board and members of the public are expected to act with civility and to treat each other with mutual respect. Applicants will state their case before the board and may present witnesses and offer documentary evidence. Following the conclusion of the applicant's case, the opponents may present witnesses and offer documentary evidence. Applicants and any abutter or similar person with standing shall have the right to present witnesses on applicant's behalf and offer rebuttal evidence. Acting through the chair, parties may cross-examine witnesses. The chair may limit irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence. At the conclusion of the rebuttal evidence, the public portion of the proceeding will be closed and the board will rule on the application pursuant to the applicable provisions of Portland's Land Use Ordinance, the City of Portland Code of Ordinances, and Maine law. No business shall be transacted by the Board of Appeals without a quorum consisting of four members being present. The vote of a majority of the members shall be necessary to authorize any action by the board. This meeting is being recorded. A link to the recording and to recordings of past meetings is available on the city's website. Appeals from the decisions of the board may be filed in the Superior Court pursuant to 30A MRSA Section 26912G. All other matters pertaining to the conduct of hearings will be governed by the provisions of the relevant statutes, Chapter 14 of the City of Portland Code of Ordinances, and the rules promulgated by the Board of Appeals. Thank you, and we can start with our goal. John Morris here. Dan Black here. Andrew. [2:37] Speaker D (unidentified): Andrew Weaver. Here. Nancy English. Here. Brian Lozanek. Here. Nathaniel Ferguson. Here. Ray Lewis. Here. [2:48] Speaker C (unidentified): We have one item of business tonight, and it is a practical difficulty variance, 28 Waterville Street. Eliza Huber-Weiss, owner, tax map 17, block E, lot 34 in the RN4 residential neighborhood zone. The applicant is seeking a practical difficulty variance to reduce the minimum interior side yard setback from the required 5 feet to 0 feet for the purpose of enclosing an existing covered porch. Representing the appeal is Chelsea Litvin, architect. Thank you. So we've reviewed your materials, but anything you'd like to add or present? [3:21] Speaker D (unidentified): You can sit at the table or at the podium. [3:26] Speaker C (unidentified): And we'll ask questions as well as needed. [3:30] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, so we've all looked at the material. I figured out in my letter to you all, this is a very odd shaped lot and house built in 1859, one of the only surviving houses from the great fire. So it's a really tiny house, and the owner is looking to enclose existing porch for use as a mudroom. So no change to the overall lot coverage, really just looking to include that porch, and the current zoning regulations don't allow us to do that with the side setbacks, since this porch is right up against both side setbacks, being only 15 feet wide lot at that point. The rest of the lot is surrounded by really tall retaining walls. I've shown the images that I included in the application. So there's really limited development potential on the lot. It's the only place that the owner would be able to add anything for use as a bedroom. And that's pretty much it. This has been to the storage board already, and I'm [4:54] Speaker C (unidentified): I have a question or two, but any other one? Anyone else on the board have questions? Just to confirm, this is in your plans, but I just kind of want it stated explicitly. You mentioned that the footprint is staying the same, and then also the height is staying the same with the same roof. Correct. [5:12] Speaker B (unidentified): Just kind of enclosing where the existing posts are around porch. Okay. [5:19] Speaker C (unidentified): Okay, from my end, anything further from the board? Well, I have my usual question, which is, you know, to get a practical difficulty variance, you have to show a significant economic injury. [5:31] Speaker B (unidentified): Can you talk to that at all? Yeah, well, that's kind of a hard question to answer. But that being said, you know, a mudroom is kind of a standard use of space. This is a 544 square foot footprint house built in 1859. So, you know, back then, people weren't really thinking about mud rooms and multiple pairs of boots and coats and everything that has to go into living in Maine in the winter, or in the summer for that matter. So this is really a use of space that will enable the owner to utilize the home in this day and age as opposed to you know really being stuffed in states did you [6:25] Speaker E (unidentified): did you ever ask a real estate broker about the value does the [6:34] Speaker C (unidentified): home still have value even if the mud room maybe [6:37] Speaker B (unidentified): if this porch is not enclosed it's it's still usable it's just i included the first floor plan of those spaces no a small kitchen small bathroom and a living room on that first floor there's no there's really no place for a storage closet yeah any [7:02] Speaker C (unidentified): further questions from the board okay seeing none i'm gonna open to public comment there's no one in the room i think the applicant is on the zoom so if you have anything to add you can use the raise hand feature teacher. [7:21] Speaker F (unidentified): I don't know how to find it. She's a participant. Oh sorry, yeah, sorry about that. Yeah, but you can hear me. Yes, OK. Yeah, I think Chelsea mostly covered it. It's just right now like we're all of our shoes and everything are come right into our kitchen and it would be really, lovely to not have that be the case and have that porch. And the porch right now is like we don't. We don't use it. We don't use it. We don't use it. We don't use it. We don't use it. We don't use it. We don't use it. We don't use it. We don't it as a porch like we don't we're not sitting on it and enjoying the views so it would be great and way more useful to us as a closed-in space where we could store more things thank [8:04] Speaker E (unidentified): you so much for your comment may i ask yeah do you have do you have any sense any kind of estimate of the economic benefit to the value of your house by enclosing this porch no i have i have no [8:21] Speaker F (unidentified): no idea what the added value would be. [8:27] Speaker C (unidentified): That's a good question. In your opinion, would you say that having a courtroom porch would substantially increase the value of the property to you? [8:41] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah, I mean, in terms of usefulness, I couldn't put a number on it for you, but in terms of usefulness to me and, like, what's the right word? Convenience, it would be awesome. Thank you. [9:01] Speaker C (unidentified): Any further questions from the board? Okay. Well, I don't see anyone, but I will still, just in case someone verges in, any public comment? Seeing none, I will close the public portion and we will get into deliberation. Any objections to that? [Speaker E (unidentified): ] The decision document opened here, so the applicant is seeking a practical difficulty variance from section 7.3 of the city's land use code, which requires a side setback of 5 feet in order to enclose an existing porch. The board has the authority to consider a practical difficulty variance application pursuant to land use section code section 2.3.9d, and then before we get into findings, I just had a question for staff. So based on my read of the alterations code, like if the alteration isn't increasing the degree of non-conformity, it could be allowed. I'm just wondering, because this first sentence says that it would be impossible, I'm just wondering [10:12] Speaker D (unidentified): and white that is. So are you talking about section 4.4.2? [Speaker E (unidentified): Yes. Yep.] Alteration is an alteration is within the existing footprint and walls of the house. The second one, B, is extensions, which I don't know if that's basically extension. Section B should be the additions, because what's by putting walls around the existing, it's an open porch right now with a roof over it, an accessory use. By putting walls around it, you're adding bulk to it, you're adding volume to it, and it's now becoming part of the principal structure. So the difference is alteration would be, you know, maybe changing the roof a little bit, or but when you put walls up and you know and create it in addition, by putting the walls up, then it's not an alteration anymore. The alteration is usually like alteration permits within the structure itself [11:35] Speaker C (unidentified): so that it goes within the footprint, it's within the footprint of the porch, which is not enclosed [11:40] Speaker D (unidentified): and not part of the structure, it's success, it's attached to it, but it's accessory. Yeah. [11:45] Speaker C (unidentified): Perfect, thank you for that. Okay, sorry for that branch, just a little bit. No, it's a [11:51] Speaker D (unidentified): good question. It's not the most clearly written section, so getting into findings, so based [12:00] Speaker C (unidentified): On the board's review of the written material and oral testimony presented at the hearing, as well as the applicable standards, the board finds as follows. An applicant for practical difficulty variants must meet all of the following standards. One, the need for a variance is from dimensional standards of the land use code, section 2.3.11 D. This is always the most straightforward one. They're seeking out setback variance, which is the dimensional standard. Any thoughts here? I agree. No, right? I would move to adopt this finding. Okay, our roll call. God, Morse. Yes. [13:01] Speaker D (unidentified): Dan Wacht. Yes. Andrew Weaver. Yes. Nancy English. Yes. Ryan Lozanek. Yes. Nathaniel Ferguson. Yes. Ray Lewis. Yes. [13:12] Speaker C (unidentified): Okay. Two, strict application of the provisions of the ordinance would create practical difficulty, meaning with both, one, preclude a use of the property which is permitted in the zone in which it is located. [Speaker B (unidentified): Thoughts] from your board. For me, shockingly, I, this was the more difficult long for me when evaluating whether or not it would create a practical difficulty. You know what we heard is that the home would be still live in that home, and their residential uses are permitted, but what could not occur is no storage of foods, etc. I think it's a little bit of a stretch, but you know, storing things on your property is a permitted use, right? And so I think this would, you know, this could preclude that use, but that use would not be exclusively prohibited, right? You could still store these things elsewhere, which is why I'm struggling with it, but I'm inclined to say yes. [14:26] Speaker A (unidentified): I tend to agree with you, Graeme. I think we're not actually thinking about it more as like a mudroom, which probably isn't a really technical term, maybe it is. I'm sort of thinking about it in that way where like mudroom seems to be accessory use, or excuse me, a use that like are approval, they wouldn't be able to do the property. I mean, maybe technically could, but it doesn't, I don't know how feasible that would be given the photos of the property. I'm struggling with it a little bit. Cause I think that, you know, a mudroom in this part of the country, I think it is sort of an extension of a residential use of a single family residential use,, but also I feel that's kind of a stretch. I don't know. I do agree with you. I'm struggling more with this on the economic street, but that's where I'm landing on it right now. [15:44] Speaker C (unidentified): I would, similar to another case we had recently, I think my understanding of the word use is in regard to the use table within the zoning ordinance, and so would limit the conclusion of a use to those uses in that table, but that's that's my read of it, and I know some of my fellow board members read it differently, so I think unfortunately as much as I don't have I don't have a bedroom in my house and I would love one too and feel for the applicant, But unfortunately, I don't see it passing this from, I think it's sort of like one of the failures of the current code, but it's like, you know, storage of, it is a storage shed. Does that count as a residential use or is that a separate use under the code? [16:45] Speaker B (unidentified): I don't know if it's a separate storage use under the code. My understanding is the current use of this property is the same as that. [16:51] Speaker C (unidentified): That's true. I think there's the idea of an accessory structure, like a shed would be an accessory structure. [17:00] Speaker A (unidentified): But that's what they call it. Just [17:04] Speaker C (unidentified): trying to think of a way that it would land on that. [17:09] Speaker E (unidentified): Wouldn't this include the use of space itself as a residence? students provide us with what you can you focus on the actual area that's being considered and not the whole of the house or does it have to be the whole of the house? May I ask the attorney? [17:37] Speaker B (unidentified): Sure yeah I think generally in case on that this is more on the undue hardship space but they look at the entire property as a whole and they're talking about what uses can go on this property and so I think with that you can't parse out part of a building unless you were looking at maybe an accessory that I don't understand the only [17:58] Speaker C (unidentified): thing I can think of and I'm not sure how relevant it is if you're like you kind of have to say that something like an ADU that is attached and still considered an accessory use despite being attached but I don't know if there's a specific one about storage my perspective on the use language here is that I don't view it as talking about the use in the tables in the land use code. I think that the use is also used later in the vaccine. Part of the land use code, the practical difficulty standard, talking about the economic hardship and how that does not require the satisfied economic hardship standard. standard, you need not prove that denial of the variance is a practical loss of all beneficial use of the land. And I think use in that context is clearly not the technical man-use code term. And so I think it doesn't make sense to read it so narrowly for this problem. I think that the use of the property is having a closed structure there. [Speaker A (unidentified): And that I] feel like we often try to fit whatever it comes up into like these like tags of the land use table and i just think that 's not how this sentence is not to be interpreted that's my perspective and i think that you know like that with that in mind it's here with the use of the property that would be allowed or in october besides that it seems like there may be a bit of a split that there's at least some consensus forming around doing a vote on that interpretation do we want to maybe get something drafted and to apologize to see where the board is at and [20:13] Speaker B (unidentified): so this would be a draft of a finding that the condition has been met. Is that what I'm [20:18] Speaker C (unidentified): understanding from the board? I believe so. I'm actually personally on the fence, but which is which is why I'm not really saying anything about this. So, well, it sounds like I think maybe you, for your coalescing around a common idea. Well, I agree with Dan that I think the term use needs to be interpreted as a use that is on the table of committed uses. I'm not sure that is better, but [Speaker D (unidentified): if, you] know, accessory storage, I guess, I'm not even sure that it falls under accessory storage, which is going to be part of the primary structure, and at that point it's really just residential, which is not good, as you know there's already a residential use going. We open up the use table just so we can see what's there speculating, so this is residential zones, or actually it might not even necessarily be the use table with the accessories, but I guess mine as I talked through it out loud I don't really think that it would be accessory because it's essentially expanding the structure. I understand your point thought about, you know, some adus are considered accessory uses even when they are, you know, physically attached to the primary structure as well, but I think that's probably, you know, the exception rather than cool. I think there might be more cases of accessory. The thing that's tripping me up is I just don't know if there's like, say, a storage or mudroom-specific use in this context. In the last one, when we were talking about the place of assembly, they very specifically referenced that there were accessory uses. Those accessory uses were part of the same structure as, say, the church, for example, and that the list of accessory uses they gave is very specifically not exhaustive. So that kind of makes everything other than the primary place of assembly into an accessory use, and lots of places of assembly do have accessory uses that are within the same building. So that kind of allowed interpretation I think that uses other than the primary place of assembly are accessory uses which I consider to be under the definition of use on this term. Here I just don't know if there is a use even whether accessory or on the standard table that it's and that's my personal sticking point but so it's kind of like a almost in between position there so like for example like a tasting room is accessory use on a brewery those are connected so I think there's like a lot of examples of connected accessory uses it's more is storage accessory use at all or is it part of the primary presence and at least from my I'm not sure [23:43] Speaker A (unidentified): I'm just thinking, like, maybe it's a way to open it back up for a question, but I just am looking at the structure here, and it looks like, for me, what makes it sort of interesting is that there's a door, like, sort of an external door separating the house from the modern room, right? And it looks like, I don't know, the windows are going to stay there, too, but it's almost, there is there's a separation there that I think for me it's sort of like I didn't think it could be construed as accessory it's frustrating I get the feeling of like we all think from a policy perspective they should be able to do this but reading the code the way that I'm reading it 's hard to it's it's hard for me to justify it like yeah [24:45] Speaker C (unidentified): I think at least maybe I'm kind of biased by my own internal divide here is it seems like there's two potential readings one is that use is expansive in general and it doesn't need to reference something specific in the code and therefore this would clearly be a use of property I think that 's one potential finding and then another potential finding being that there is no specific use that is being prevented because the property is being used as residential kind of before and it would continue to be under residential use does that kind of sound like the yeah it does I think [25:25] Speaker A (unidentified): Honestly, I think it again, it sucks, but I think it's, it's still part of the residential use. I know, I think that it's an extension of it because I just, I don't think that, I mean, unless we're able to find something in the code that really says that this can, but this is an accessory use that would not otherwise be permitted in the zone. I mean, on the property, you know, I think it's an extension of the residential use on, I think, I think, but that's [26:03] Speaker C (unidentified): For what is Brown Landing, for what it's worth, in section 6.6 there are several specific accessory uses stated with standards for them. I don't know if that list is exhaustive of what an accessory use can be, but for when it's worth, storage is a lot of them. Yeah, I looked at the same intersection that I also don't know if it's exhaustive, but I think, I mean, consider there's like a high standard to consider part of being close struck, like with like one closet in your home be different use [26:34] Speaker A (unidentified): Than the rest of that, right? That's what I'm struggling with. Yeah, it's like, sort of, where's the line drawn? And I guess maybe there's an argument with like, there's literally outside of the building, there's a door and there's windows there. It might not be heated, but it's not heated, right? It's not traditionally like, you know, [26:52] Speaker C (unidentified): right exactly yeah that's a good point i think it's if i mean i think it's worth looking at section 6.6.1 of accessory uses which talks in general so while 6.6.2 is like standard for specific accessory uses, it starts by talking about accessory uses in general. And so, in general, accessory uses shall be permitted in conjunction with permitted or conditional principal uses. Accessory uses shall be customarily found in association with the principal use. I think customarily found in association with the residential. Generally consistent with the impacts of the principal use. Secondary in nature, clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal use in terms of area and function. I think that gets the right end point, though, at the door and at Nancy's name. Located on the same lot, yes, and consistent with the intent of the zone. So I view that as a general statement, like accessory uses, things subordinate to a cheap use are permitted just in general. And then there's not an exhaustive list provided in the code of accessory uses. There's specific accessory uses that have additional standards. But I don't believe there's an exhaustive list of them. But I would read that assuming that it says we do need to have a particular use that's needed in the code that's being precluded here, I think, from what we're looking at. Yeah, I guess from a common sense understanding, if I had a mudroom, I would really consider that to be part of the house. And I don't even know if I could say count that as livable square footage if I was listing the house for sale. Is that true? I actually, I don't know. I think maybe it depends on if it's I don't know the details that are, but like, I would not consider that part of the living space. [28:56] Speaker E (unidentified): Can we ask our attorney if she has any thoughts about expansive definitions? [29:03] Speaker B (unidentified): Well, I think right now the, I'm not certain there would there be need be a permit for a change of use to establish an accessory is that right or was there not so [29:18] Speaker E (unidentified): yes I [29:22] Speaker D (unidentified): mean that I think Gray brought up the six point six point two I think the specific additional standards for accessory uses those would you know, ADUs, drive-throughs, there are usually things that are being added. Home occupancy, you kind of go through casing rooms. There are usually things that do need to be added to the permit. And usually, that's answering the question. [30:03] Speaker B (unidentified): I think, yeah, and I think they're usually distinct. I hope you're talking to me. and you distinct from the same thing that's fair to say or i'm just trying to get the graph i mean [30:13] Speaker D (unidentified): home occupation is part of the residential use yeah but it's you definitely need a change [30:20] Speaker B (unidentified): of use for that because you get a certificate of that right with that so generally when accessory use they're a permitting process more often than not right because it's if it's a use different than a single family home. It requires a different certificate of office. There is a distinction in that process from a private perspective. And so I don't know if that helps the board kind of think about what accessory uses are sometimes coupled with a principal based family use. [30:53] Speaker C (unidentified): Earlier in the conversation, you mentioned that the porch was an accessory use. So it sounds like though there's two potential findings. I'm just trying to sum up, so please correct me if I'm mis-coding anyone. So Nathaniel, if you want to put, do or don't want to put forward the, this is an accessory use that is separate than the residential use that is currently in place, and therefore this use is precluded, is something we can still vote on, and then it seems like the other one is kind of unchanged. Does that seem like a fair summary? I'm not sure what you mean by unchanged. Oh, when I say unchanged, I think I think last time I said something to the effect of the enclosed space would become part of the residential use, and there's current residential use, and therefore the use is unchanged. I'm going to [32:02] Speaker B (unidentified): draft that finding, okay, because it's more straightforward. Right now we'll take a vote on that. Yeah, okay, all right, [33:35] Speaker C (unidentified): we'll see if we're trying to just edit this. I [33:51] Speaker B (unidentified): think this addresses the board's conversation. We [34:15] Speaker C (unidentified): got the timing. You're great. I can do it. Okay. [34:23] Speaker D (unidentified): Todd Morse, yes. Dan Black, yes. Andrew Wieger, yes. Nancy English, yes. Brian Lasanic, yes. Nathaniel Ferguson, yes. Graham Lewis, yes. Okay, [34:42] Speaker E (unidentified): moving [34:45] Speaker C (unidentified): on to two, would result in significant economic injury to the applicant. Significant economic injury shall mean that the value of the property, if the variance were denied, would be substantially lower than if the variance were granted. I think I always maybe take a more expansive definition of significant here, in that as long as I think it's enough to be clearly noticeable, that is significant to me. I think otherwise it becomes really hard to be objective about it, but I'm in agreement. So I mean I think it's certainly the property would be enhanced. See, it would increase the square footage of the first [35:31] Speaker G (unidentified): floor by about 10 as part of the prime structure. I feel like that's significant. Do [35:58] Speaker B (unidentified): you want to mention like the user enjoyment of the property would it be enhanced as well? [37:37] Speaker D (unidentified): Second. Scott Morse. Yes. Dan Black. Yes. Andrew Weaver. Yes. Anthony English. Yes. Brian Lozanek. Yes. Nathaniel Ferguson. Yes. Graham Lewis. Yes. [37:52] Speaker C (unidentified): Need for variance is due to unique circumstances of the property eating on to the general conditions in the neighborhood. This is another one I was a bit back and forth on, just because there's a lot of small loss in the neighborhood. But I think one thing that is specific to the property is the location of the current porch retaining walls, yeah, in the unique shape, yeah, all good stuff that [39:29] Speaker G (unidentified): means that we adopt the finding as written. God, [39:35] Speaker D (unidentified): Morse, yes. Dan Black, yes. Andrew Weaver, yes. Nancy English, Ryan Lozanek, yes. Nathaniel Ferguson, yes. Graham Lewis, yes. [39:50] Speaker C (unidentified): For the granting of the durians will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and a lot have an unreasonably detrimental effect in either these the use or fair market value of flooding properties. And it doesn't change the print at all. I think a lot of other homes in the neighborhood have mud rooms or even kind of enclosed porches. And there was public comment, public comments, and then start forward. One other question, sorry, was this porch built after 1957? How does that, 's a kind of an odd point. [41:08] Speaker B (unidentified): I don't know when the porch was built. I can't remember. I have something in my head now. I think that at one point we went to the store for it, but not now. [41:18] Speaker D (unidentified): We have the, we could look at the footprint on the pre-assessor's card. I can try and take a look at that. [41:27] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, that's not real because it's just the 0.4 on the extensions, which is a little bit, it's very odd. It has to be mostly of glass. [Speaker D (unidentified): Anyway, sorry] about that. I'm pushing for this finding. [41:51] Speaker D (unidentified): Second. Todd Morse? Yes. Dan Black? Yes. Do you still read? Sorry. Yeah, that's fine. Andrew Weaver? Yes. Nancy English? Yes. Brian Lazanek? Yes. Nathaniel Ferguson? Yes. Graham Lewis? Yes. [42:11] Speaker C (unidentified): 5. The practical difficulty is not a result of an action taken by the applicant or a prior owner. I think in this case, the porch is kind of not relevant because the porch isn't giving them any special access to build this mudroom. They couldn't build it in any circumstance because of the setback. So I would say it's not a result of any action taken by the prior owner. Oh, I was more saying the need for the variance does not come from the positioning of the porch, but rather the positioning of the setback alone, which is not a result of the action taken by the prior owner. This one's always difficult to word because it's kind of proving a negative in some sense. Sure, yeah. We've seen no evidence in the record of any action taken by the applicant that led to this setback. [43:36] Speaker B (unidentified): I hear what you're saying, but I feel like we need to connect one dot. [43:44] Speaker G (unidentified): I mean, I guess you could say the unique characteristics of the law, physical characteristics and shape, are not that give rise to the setback issue or not the result of the outcome of the firearm. [44:12] Speaker C (unidentified): I think with this one it would be more if there were opponents who would enter this into the record. If we did have a plan or become obvious applicant content, do we have a motion to accept this finding? [44:48] Speaker D (unidentified): All right. Todd Morse. Yes. Dan Black. Yes. Andrew Weaver. Yes. Nancy English. Yes. Brian Lesanik. Yes. Nathaniel Ferguson. Yes. Graham Lewis. [45:02] Speaker C (unidentified): Yes. Six. No other feasible alternative to the applicant is available to the applicant except a variance. I think the applicant did document this was kind of the only place they could possibly have a mudroom for what they want. There's no feasible alternative, also due to the weird shape and grade of the lot. [45:22] Speaker E (unidentified): Can I ask a question about how much structure a porch can have before it becomes part of a house in your room, like how much you can put screens, obviously, not walls, not windows. So you could do a lot, presumably short of walls. I'm just thinking out loud. So there may be some kind of alternative that would be sheltering. Do you mean in terms of there being a feasible way to wait without I mean, I don't know. You're more architects. [46:18] Speaker C (unidentified): Possibly not an architect. But I do think that the interpretation of alteration versus extension could be interesting, but this isn't like an alteration in the appeal, but it is an interesting point. Any other thoughts on that? Or, I guess, motion alternatively? I'll figure out this language. So moved. Second. Todd Morse? Yes. Dan Black? Yes. Andrew Weaver? Yes. Nancy English? Yes. Yes. Brian Lozanek? Yes. Nathaniel Ferguson? Yes. Graham Lewis? Yes. Seven. The granting of variants will not have an unreasonably adverse effect on the natural environment. But for it to stay the same, it's hard to imagine how it will have an [47:17] Speaker A (unidentified): impact on vegetation or there's no work proposed, anything like that, increasing [47:26] Speaker G (unidentified): the impervious surface of water. We'll [48:18] Speaker C (unidentified): second and then we'll do this. Do we have the findings ready? Second. Todd Morse? Yes. Dan Black? Yes. Andrew Reaver? Yes. Nancy English? Yes. Brian Lozani? Yes. Nathaniel Ferguson? Yes. Graham Lewis? Yes. Eight, the property is not located in Polar and Park within the shoreland area as defined by 38 MRS section 435, nor within the shoreland zone or flood hazard area as defined in the this land use code. And it's been very straightforward. I entertain a motion to accept this finding. [49:40] Speaker D (unidentified): Brad Morse? Yes. Dan Black? Yes. Andrew Weaver? Yes. Nancy English? Yes. Brian Lozanek? Yes. Nathaniel Ferguson? Yes. Graham Lewis? Yes. [49:53] Speaker C (unidentified): The board finds that all of the standards described above have not been satisfied and therefore denies the practical difficulty variance. I would entertain the motion to deny this variance. So moved. Second. [50:06] Speaker D (unidentified): Scott Morse. Yes. Dan Black. Yes. Andrew Lieber. Yes. Nancy English. Yes. Brian Lazanek. Yes. Nathaniel Ferguson. Yes. Graham Lewis. Yes. [50:21] Speaker C (unidentified): Okay. I'm very sorry. I think all of us kind of wanted this, but yeah, the practical difficulty standards is very high. And yeah, it seems to be a bit of an oversight of the code, but yeah, I apologize. Thank you for listening. Okay. I guess with that, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Leslie, do you have anything they'd like to add? [50:49] Speaker D (unidentified): Second. Scott Morse. Yes. Sam Black. Yes. Andrew Weaver. Yes. Nancy English. Yes. Brian Lozanek. Yes. Nathaniel Ferguson. Yes. Graham Lewis. [51:05] Speaker E (unidentified): Yes. Do we have someone? Oh, thanks, everyone. [51:14] Speaker D (unidentified): We do have a meeting in two weeks. We have one of two. feel right now there is one or two not right now there is one to feel probably sending out the headcount to get closer all right so thank you