Portland Zoning Board grants variance for mudroom addition on Arbell Avenue

[8:29] Speaker A (unidentified): I didn't choose anywhere to be here. Is it going to be here? Is it going to be here? Yes. Okay. [13:37] Anna Chata (Zoning Administrator): I know that you use the black lettering. Yeah. I can almost change that tomorrow if you didn't [13:54] Speaker C (unidentified): have time because you can import it. I set up a toolbox. It's in the zoning under blue game zoning, I think, is where I put the file, so the shared file, zoning in our something, Google Drive, zoning. Yes. Okay. Thank you. These [14:33] Anna Chata (Zoning Administrator): chairs do not slide on this purple. Wow. This must be Nancy's, [14:46] Speaker C (unidentified): right? Did she already? Yeah, this is her. Sorry. [15:23] Anna Chata (Zoning Administrator): And I'm sorry, Brand, right? Brand? Brand. I'm Anna Chata. I'm the zoning administrator. Nice to meet you. I know you've been communicating with me. But we do have a quorum tonight. We have four members, which is what we need, which is the quorum. And when the chair, Todd Morris, will kind of do a spiel and talk about the meeting and stuff. And then when he actually come forward, usually the applicants sit at the table there, if you're more comfortable and you can have your laptop. [16:00] Applicant/Representative: Just start there. Do I have to be [16:01] Anna Chata (Zoning Administrator): You have to wait to be called in. But Matt can give you the password. [16:06] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah. Oh, yeah. I need Wi Fi. Yes. Hold on one sec. [16:12] Anna Chata (Zoning Administrator): I'm still getting set up. Yeah, but all we do is just, you know, we're only for a few of nights. Oh, OK. That way, we'll see each other. I don't know where else it's in the line, but. [16:29] Speaker C (unidentified): Oh, it should be under family. [16:33] Applicant/Representative: Sorry. Not at this time. [16:35] Anna Chata (Zoning Administrator): Well, usually, it's there. As long as it's over the. [16:40] Speaker C (unidentified): But also, it's a past employee. Yeah,, yeah, it's, yeah, I mean, basically, putting it on the wall and regularly, you know, you were the first one to get it before, generally, absolutely, because I was using paper notice, that's when people would get, yeah, when somebody, apparently, yeah, on our website earlier, yeah,, great, [19:46] Speaker E (unidentified): the office is there. We were all like, who's that? Wait, I know Michael and Laurie, Michael in the winter and Laurie. Oh, I didn't know Laurie. I like both of them were like spiral. They were like, and you're all like, [20:27] Speaker C (unidentified): I knew I knew about my [20:29] Anna Chata (Zoning Administrator): climate change. [20:41] Speaker E (unidentified): That's the spirit. Right. I think we're exactly right. We're melting in the freezing. [20:51] Anna Chata (Zoning Administrator): Because we get freezing rain and not snow, this is good old-fashioned smell that's creepy. The other thing too is just what my partner Paul says, who's 71, I am will be 66, you need brick sidewalks in the old fort. He said that's to get rid of the elderly if you know how slippery the birds are, even worse than like the concrete or the feminists. I was like, what are they trying to do, kill us off? You know, we don't feel this may not be all this population, you know, one of them at a time. [23:58] Speaker A (unidentified): Head. And it looks like that little project still up and running. You put in traffic coming in. So they look at the rain, but they're trying to get one of those good same day. Yeah. So and you guys have been in this code. [24:25] Todd Morris (Chair): This year it will be four. Four. Oh. That's [24:32] Speaker G (unidentified): nice. It's going to be a busy time with the fall starting up, so. [24:41] Speaker A (unidentified): What's busy for you? [24:42] Speaker G (unidentified): We just got push-pousing stuff, elections, all that kind of stuff. [24:48] Speaker A (unidentified): Maybe you can explain to me what is the idea with, is it $879,000? [25:52] Speaker E (unidentified): From the time that it was [25:53] Speaker G (unidentified): I don't think they did [25:57] Board Member: I'll have to [25:59] Speaker C (unidentified): I mean I didn't know I mean that's the actual [26:10] Anna Chata (Zoning Administrator): Property tax that you get [27:03] Todd Morris (Chair): Things. So we're trying to figure out what the ones that were going to be a crosswalk in the future. All right, we could you get started, everyone? [27:19] Anna Chata (Zoning Administrator): Sorry, hold on. Did you assign Father Amy as co host? Yes. Okay. Yeah, I think [27:26] Todd Morris (Chair): I'm in here. All right. [27:29] Speaker G (unidentified): Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the September 2026 meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Portland. The Zoning Board of Appeals will conduct this meeting by hybrid methods in accordance with the requirements of one MRS section 403B and 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 state their case before the Board and may present witnesses and offer documentary evidence. Following the conclusion of the applicant's case, opponents may present witnesses and offer documentary evidence. Applicants and any employer or similar person with standing shall have the right to present witnesses on the 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 in the application pursuant to the applicable provisions Portland's land use code. Sorry, ordinance, the city of Portland code ordinances and main law. Their business shall be transacted by the board of appeals without a forum consisting of four members being present. A vote of a majority of the members present shall be necessary to authorize any action of the board. This meeting is being recorded. A link to the reporting and to recordings of past meetings available on the city's website. Appeals for decisions of this board may be filed in the superior court pursuant to 30A MRSA section 26912G. All other matters pertaining to the conduct of hearings shall be governed by the provisions for the relevant statutes chapter 14 of the Portland code of ordinances and the rules promulgated by the [29:09] Todd Morris (Chair): board of appeals. Oh sorry and [29:17] Speaker C (unidentified): can we start with the whole call. Todd Morse here, Andrew Weaver here, Nancy English here, Nathaniel Ferguson here. We have one item of new business tonight. [29:29] Speaker G (unidentified): It is a practical difficulty appeal at 119 Arbel Avenue, Christina Wolfe and Brian Appledge owners, tax map 330, block G, block 4, in the RN Warren residential neighborhood zone. The applicant is seeking a practical difficulty variance to reduce the minimum rear yard setback from the required 20 feet to 8 feet, table 7A, section 7.2, for an addition. Representing the appeal is owner, Brian Appledge. If you wouldn't mind coming up and presenting. We've reviewed your materials in advance so you don't need to repeat everything that is in the packet that you want to add, and there might be questions from the board. Okay. [30:11] Applicant/Representative: I do have some additional information, but I'll leave that in case there are questions. I think that the application generally speaks for itself. Up. So yeah, we're trying to add a mudroom for existing house. The property is in current use. The property is on two unaccepted streets. One of those unaccepted streets is the paper street still accessible on the belt. Applied for a permit back in May, I guess later in June, and it was rejected as my assumptions about lot line definitions were indirect. It turned out in 2024 front lot line was redefined from the direction that the primary entrance of the primary dwelling is facing to the shortest lot line about a right of way. Our shortest lot line about the paper street this establish will be a from the view of the street the side yard is now the rear setback. This goes into our driveway pulled out here trade existing house the existing house the addition would be off of the kitchen. This even though it's not our primary entrance it's the primarily used entrance stumbles into our kitchen leaving us little space. Our family is about to expand and we're trying to just make our space more livable. We don't think that we'd be able to replicate a property like this in Portland again. So if we couldn't modify this house to meet our needs, we'd probably end up leaving the city of Portland to find a more affordable house that would meet our needs. [33:08] Speaker A (unidentified): The proposal as such, [33:14] Applicant/Representative: The dashed lines, the black dashed lines, are the direct interpretation of Table 7A, under section 7.2. The box in red is the proposed foundation of the addition and the dash green line is the proposed variance to the rear setback. [33:42] Speaker G (unidentified): I'm just going to ask a quick question. These front, rear, and corner, are these the current definition of the code? [33:49] Applicant/Representative: That's the current that I've used that's the currently I use definition when the house was originally built it was referenced differently it was referenced as a primary entrance space this year so this establishes the front lot line in 2000 and like I said I didn't think I needed to look at the destination and front lot lines being obvious but here we are so yeah I mean that's that's basically it i know there's something there's a couple other ways that you could spin this from interpretation but i don't think it's an interpretation issue because the shortest lot line is the lot line on bailey however this would just this definition will prevent this from modifying this house thank [34:45] Speaker G (unidentified): you any questions from the board i just have one and maybe it's just getting a little bit more detail so you mentioned that the house right now wouldn't meet your current needs for residential without this expansion could you expand a little bit more on that and like the space constraints that you're under now [35:09] Applicant/Representative: Yeah, it's just a limited kitchen and no entryway, and you know, just, you know, with shoes and stuff like, yes, it is livable, it's doable, but it's not what we want, right? Yeah, and you feel like would have to move without it, maybe not like not like tomorrow, but you know, looking one or two years down the road, yeah, it basically would directly impact our future planning for the [35:36] Todd Morris (Chair): concept. Any other [35:40] Speaker G (unidentified): questions before I [35:44] Applicant/Representative: guess the other thing, that last detail I didn't share, is that if this were to get the variance, the new eight foot setback, the proposed setback would be equivalent to the inside or interior side setbacks as established by 7a. This interior side setback would be adjacent to another interior side setback on the adjacent property on Tarbell, and then the property behind on Bailey would actually be oriented in a mirrored fashion the way that their lot lines. So I don't think that it would have any impact on anyone's ability to develop any of these properties should the roads ever be brought up. [36:35] Board Member: I have more of a question. I guess it's sort of for the applicant, sort of for the city. Has there been any discussion about subdividing the lot in such a way that you no longer have frontage on that corner of Bailey? With that, with taking a triangle off, yeah, well, anything they take off needs to be a lawfully conforming law, yeah, that's what that's no matter, because if it's if it meets minimums, it's about [37:04] Applicant/Representative: and that's been explored on this, yeah, it's about double the size, in theory it could be subdivided, but you would end up with a lot that's not useful, it couldn't, a lot that wouldn't be buildable. I think you could get one buildable lot out of it, but that would solve an issue [37:24] Board Member: if they were to subdivide it and sell it. [37:27] Anna Chata (Zoning Administrator): Each lot has to be a minimum of 6,500 square feet. That's what the minimum lot size is [37:34] Speaker A (unidentified): in the RN1 residential neighborhood. Even to donate as a green space? [37:40] Anna Chata (Zoning Administrator): No, you can't, if they could put it in the conservation, but they would still own that [37:47] Board Member: yeah and [37:54] Applicant/Representative: reviewing the neighborhood sometimes [Board Member: actually so] I did a search of the neighborhood, I'm defining it by this red line that's rivers and neighborhood north forest, kind of like northwest of Allen, east of the railway and inside of Riverside Industrial Parkway, zoomed in at the location of the house, evaluated every corner lot in the neighborhood and 33% of houses in that neighborhood referenced the long lot line with their primary entrance. Those would be within the character of the neighborhood is [38:57] Speaker A (unidentified): This the neighborhood as the neighborhood ever tried to petition for the vacation for the abandonment of the area. [39:10] Applicant/Representative: Not that i'm aware of the news is it 's got trees on it right yeah you know there's a small section that essentially serves as somebody's driveway on the other side. it's maintained by the city but i mean it's it's bailey but it basically serves as an individual it's a dead end section of bailey that is a dirt road that's maintained by the city but it's discontinued at this point okay [39:55] Speaker G (unidentified): I'm gonna open it up to any comments from the public starting with in the room they're [40:05] Board Member: Just thinking might be helpful if you just showed them a picture of the front of the house from Tarbell Avenue. Showing the driveway more than what rooms going to go. So let's get a visual to that. That's [40:44] Applicant/Representative: The picture of the house in the street. Mudroom would be over here. Proposed additions going over existing driveway. The lot line you can kind of see is pretty accurate to the existing Ironman from the original survey. [41:02] Board Member: So what, 99% of the time we're going in and out of that door right there. People don't use their front doors in the living room. In general, they go in their bedroom door. [41:13] Speaker E (unidentified): We also have a one-year-old puppy. I'm having a kid. I'm a nurse, so I'm constantly tracking in my germs into the kitchen. Like, you walk in that door, and it's immediately the fridge and the stove. And we're really active people. And we're always tracking in mud, and salt, and all the things from the outdoors. And yeah, that's really why we want them. [41:45] Speaker G (unidentified): Any further public comment from in the room? Then moving on to Zoom. Actually, we have no attendees. So I'm just going to give it one last time before we enter deliberation. Seeing none, I think we're ready to get into the discussion. Let me open up the decision document in front of us. All right. So this is the RN1 zone practical difficulty variance appeal. The applicant is seeking a practical difficulty variance from Table 7A and Section 7.2 of the City's Land Use Code to reduce the setback from the rear lot line from 25 feet to 8 feet to allow for the addition of mudroom entryway to the existing single-family dwelling. [42:28] Anna Chata (Zoning Administrator): Can I just hold up for a minute? Oh, yes. Sorry. Just checking this. The variance is from table 7a, and maybe the definition in section 7.2. 7.2 is a definition section. It's not part of table, so I think it's 7a that's the measurement is in table 7a. Okay, yeah, I'm sorry. All right, at least I thought I had looked at this before the meeting. I'll just do that carefully. [42:58] Speaker G (unidentified): It would be just 7A? [43:00] Speaker E (unidentified): That's where the dimensional standard is, correct. Yeah, okay. That makes sense. [43:05] Speaker G (unidentified): 7A of the city's land use code to reduce the setback from the rear lob line from 25 feet to 8 feet to allow for the addition of a mudroom entryway to the existing single-family dwelling. The board has the authority to consider a practical difficulty variance application pursuant to land use code section 2.3.9D. Based on the board's review of the written materials and oral testimony presented at the hearing, as well as the applicable standards, the board finds as follows. An applicant for practical difficulty variance must meet all of the following standards. One, the need for variances from dimensional standards of the land use code section 2.3.11d. This one tends to be the most straightforward word with practical difficulty that seems to be self-evident, that this is a dimensional standard because they're just asking for a straight variance in the setback and not really a reinterpretation of the definition. Is there any motion to accept this finding? Morris? [44:27] Anna Chata (Zoning Administrator): Yes. Andrew Weaver? Yes. Nancy English? Yes. Nathaniel Ferguson? Yes. Okay. [44:35] Speaker G (unidentified): Strict application of the provisions of the ordinance would create a practical difficulty, meaning it would both, one, preclude the use of the property for which it is permitted in the zone in which it is located. This tends to be the most substantial portion. I'm wondering if there are thoughts from the board. I have some thoughts, but I want to open up the board, because it's a really tough, really tough bar to clear. I know we had just looked at one that was similar to this, but what strikes me is this analogous is, I mean, I think we can go back and forth on like how much we should weight this claim, but the applicant has stated that they will not continue to have to be able to use the property the residential use intended under the application of the standard, and they also purchased it in 2023 in order to kind of put it into residential use by themselves, but then they kind of with the expectation that they could do an addition like this and then the standard changed and now kind of that hard not hardship sorry that difficulty of that standard changing this kind of now imposing this cost they i think couldn't have foreseen. So I personally lean towards, in this case, quite possibly yes, but I'm wondering what [45:59] Todd Morris (Chair): the rest of the board thinks. [46:04] Speaker A (unidentified): Well, that sounds good to me, preclude a use of this property. The use is precluded by virtue of the fact that the definition has changed for the front easier lines of the use being precluded as use for growing family for not precluding the use as a resident, [46:37] Todd Morris (Chair): right? [46:39] Speaker G (unidentified): Well I'm saying from what they've said it's precluding their use of the property as a residential property in the first place because like they're saying that in order for their future plans to make sense they would have to move from the property so they wouldn't be able to use it. But I know that 's subjective as to whether or not that's a legitimate thing to consider. But I [47:02] Todd Morris (Chair): don't agree with that. I think that just strictly replying to the ordinance concludes the use which would otherwise be committed. I'm comfortable with that. [47:23] Board Member: I think I'm feeling the same way. [47:28] Speaker G (unidentified): so i think just a rough thing the app the applicant has presented i do also kind of want to add that well i guess maybe this comes in a later point that it would have been reasonable for them to expect to be able to use it in this way when they bought it plans [48:28] Todd Morris (Chair): for residential use under that assumption yeah [48:46] Speaker G (unidentified): we could maybe just put that under five actually sorry i [49:26] Speaker E (unidentified): want to capture your point about wanting to do this or needing to go because I think that's what [49:30] Speaker G (unidentified): yeah, I mean, I think that is the evidence that they presented. And we need to relocate to meet the needs of their growing family, maybe. [49:55] Todd Morris (Chair): So yeah, it's better. It's [51:02] Speaker G (unidentified): a bit longer. I just want to make sure that for it's time to read all of it. [51:22] Speaker E (unidentified): I want to also capture why it would be just kind of [51:25] Todd Morris (Chair): okay yeah that makes sense thank you okay additional [Speaker A (unidentified): family members additional] family members or something more [52:00] Speaker A (unidentified): residents just [52:15] Speaker E (unidentified): trying to capture what you know what you just articulated there's some testimony about sanitary entryway those kinds of things [52:28] Speaker G (unidentified): maintain adequate space, maintain a sanitary entryway. Yeah, I think that seems fine to me. [52:56] Todd Morris (Chair): Leave it up for the rest of the board to comment and review. [53:19] Speaker G (unidentified): I have a motion. I have a motion to accept this finding, but no rush. Second. Todd Morse? Yes. Andrew Weaver? Yes. Nancy English? Yes. Nathaniel Ferguson? Yes. 2. Would result in significant economic injury to the applicant. Significant economic injury showing the value of the property if the variance were denied would be substantially lower than the value the variance were granted. I don't have this in front of me, but we have the specific square footage that would be added. I think that the better entryway and the increase in square Spare footage, I think, would fairly obviously have an effect on the home value. The entryway increased spare footage [54:26] Todd Morris (Chair): would have a significant impact [54:30] Speaker G (unidentified): on the value of the property. But [54:40] Todd Morris (Chair): 200, it's like [54:47] Board Member: 18% of the existing. Yeah. [54:49] Speaker G (unidentified): But the 80% of the existing footprint is actually expanded above the normal. [55:59] Todd Morris (Chair): I need to get it on the side. Do you have a second? Sorry. Sorry. I'm going to make one at a time. OK. [56:28] Speaker G (unidentified): No, I'm good. It's fine. The need for variances due to unique circumstances of the property amount to the general conditions in the neighborhood as I understand it if the house was located closer to what people might interpret as the front said that the front of the hotline then they would have been able to get this very early we need to be this variance. Am I correct in that? [57:07] Todd Morris (Chair): I view it as the fact that it's on that quarter between those. Yeah, one of them is whatever the word is, but like one of those really not. [57:28] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, less about the house orientation. [57:30] Board Member: Yeah, borders is a uniquely long border on a paper street that other lots don't have. That's wrong. It has a shorter line on the paper street side, so I'm going to phrase that differently. Maybe just because it borders an undeveloped paper street. Because of both borders of paper street and it's a corner lot, maybe. [58:53] Todd Morris (Chair): Yeah, the unique shape. [59:37] Speaker A (unidentified): Could it be an undeveloped paper street instead of a street? Sure. Unexpectedly. Yeah. [59:52] Applicant/Representative: There's a definition for paper street in the San Diego code. A lot of paper streets in the neighborhood, yeah. [1:00:41] Speaker A (unidentified): I move that we accept this funding. [1:00:46] Anna Chata (Zoning Administrator): Todd Lars? Yes. Sorry, Andrew Weaver? Yes. Nancy Inglidis? Yes. Nathaniel Ferguson? Yes. The [1:00:58] Speaker G (unidentified): granting of the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and will not have a reasonably detrimental effect on either the use or fair market value of your flooding properties. I think the applicant counted what the number of homes where the partage was on the longer [1:01:16] Todd Morris (Chair): side in the neighborhood for the house case and found that while it was not the majority [1:01:23] Speaker G (unidentified): a significant number of homes in the neighborhood had this configuration or 33 % I think that was 33. [Todd Morris (Chair): let's] configure the origin and say the front entrance on the long side yeah [1:01:52] Todd Morris (Chair): we should be saying like that's based on what the property was yep and [1:02:07] Speaker G (unidentified): therefore they would have this side set back that there that the applicant is applying for you [1:02:23] Applicant/Representative: made details in there about not impacting the abutting property yeah [1:02:29] Speaker G (unidentified): i mean i think you can add that i just want to capture [1:02:33] Speaker E (unidentified): what you just said plotline and therefore would not have the same would not would have the same [1:02:40] Speaker G (unidentified): so the fact that the applicant is currently applying for that dimension what other people want to do [1:02:51] Anna Chata (Zoning Administrator): does the board want to speak to [1:02:55] Speaker E (unidentified): any other underdiable character in the neighborhood i think that the remaining [1:03:05] Speaker G (unidentified): set back in place is sufficient to avoid impacting the fair market value of the budding office insufficient to not affect it is sufficient to impact yep insufficient for not impacting give people a moment to i guess this will fall i [1:04:33] Speaker E (unidentified): just want to be clear if i'm thinking so the one the board's conceptualizing here is that like the it's essentially a side yard that would be closest to a neighbor neighboring property is that what the board's trying to say 33 of like [1:04:46] Board Member: i would i would i don't know if we need the first sentence i think we can say that i think from looking at the other properties of bunning it and like nearby on the street that the size of the problem with the mod room is not sufficiently, they're not significantly different than other homes in the area. And the setback, if you're looking at another house, like similarly the house across the street from them, I think they have a pretty similar setback. [1:05:24] Todd Morris (Chair): Yeah, I actually agree. [1:05:25] Speaker G (unidentified): I think maybe it's stronger without that first portion. I think it just makes it slightly more confusing. Yeah. Yeah, I think that makes sense. it was a good analysis that you did but i think this is sufficient to meet the finding yeah i think that makes sense yeah [1:06:18] Board Member: that might be important to mention too that if something were to change in the future the mudroom would still be within the existing and this did become the side set back it would be within that you know or it would be not within [1:06:31] Speaker G (unidentified): that if that makes sense i think that also just establishes the character of the neighborhood as [1:06:36] Todd Morris (Chair): well just in general. So [1:06:47] Speaker E (unidentified): Let me capture that, Andrew. So based on what if and maybe pre is that what you're talking about, like the previous? Yeah, the previous are kind of like the [1:07:01] Board Member: straight face definition of side setback, like, and not so much the, I think the side setback [1:07:10] Speaker G (unidentified): establishes that there are other properties and neighborhoods separated by an eight foot setback in some form, and I think that is what makes them similar to this property. Maybe even if we like, we don't necessarily need to interpret this as the new side setback because it won't be. Yeah, you can say that because the neighborhood generally relies on eight foot setbacks to separate the flooding properties. This is in line with that, and like, yeah, because [1:07:37] Todd Morris (Chair): because the property immediately changes and you want to on-turtle that one. It's got a paper size that could fit. [1:08:07] Speaker G (unidentified): Perseverance, the addition will go back and forth on this. I just want to give you some time in here. If you could accept this funding. [1:08:53] Todd Morris (Chair): I'm sorry, can you say who I'm signing for? You can't say who I'm supposed to be. [1:08:57] Speaker G (unidentified): I just want you to sign in. OK, yes. Exactly. Change. Accept [1:09:18] Anna Chata (Zoning Administrator): this funding. Seconds. Yes, Andrew Weaver. Yes, Nancy English, and Samantha Ferguson. Yes, five. [1:09:32] Speaker G (unidentified): For practical difficulties not the result of an action taken by the applicant or prior grade, prior owner, I think we were talking about this one before. When the applicant purchased a property, this proposed edition would have been allowed under the rules then, so the applicant had no way of anticipating the situation that they purchased the problem to begin with. You [1:10:01] Todd Morris (Chair): can say oh yeah [1:10:09] Speaker G (unidentified): but they, yeah, the microphone [1:10:16] Anna Chata (Zoning Administrator): is pretty good recording everything, but if you go on and speak up a little bit, I'm having a hard time, just for the record, I know. All right. [1:11:20] Todd Morris (Chair): Yeah, I would [1:11:38] Speaker G (unidentified): entertain a motion to accept this finding, and I would add the property. We [1:11:53] Board Member: accept the finding as written. Thank you all. [1:11:58] Anna Chata (Zoning Administrator): Scott Morris. Yes. Sorry. Scott Morris. Andrew Weaver. Yes. Nancy English. Yes. Nathaniel Ferguson. Yes. Yes. [1:12:11] Speaker G (unidentified): No other feasible alternatives available to the applicant except a variance. I would go straight forward. They can't build this entrance in this location without a variance in the setback. [1:13:26] Board Member: I don't know if it's too repetitive. I would add that at the first sentence, there's no other feasible location. And we say feasible in the next sentence. Well, I don't know if it's too repetitive. Here, [1:13:49] Speaker G (unidentified): An entertaining motion to accept this finding. Move. Second. Todd Morse? Yes. Andrew Weaver? Yes. Nancy English? Yes. Nathaniel Ferguson? Yes. Second, the granting of variance will not have an unreasonably adverse effect on the natural environment. I think post-variance, the overall footprint of the lot will not be significantly higher than other lots in the area. [1:14:19] Board Member: The area they're building on is already an impervious surface, so there's no added surface. [1:14:23] Todd Morris (Chair): Yeah, I think that's better, actually. [1:15:41] Speaker G (unidentified): Do I entertain a motion to accept this finding? So moved. [1:16:15] Speaker A (unidentified): Todd Marsh? Yes. [1:16:17] Anna Chata (Zoning Administrator): Andrew Weaver? Yes. Nancy English? Yes. Cassandra Ferguson? Yes. [1:16:22] Speaker G (unidentified): The property is not located in goal or in park within a shoreline area as defined in 38 MRS section 435, nor within a shoreland zone or flood hazard area as defined in the land use code. This one is also very straightforward. I would entertain a motion to accept this finding. No. Podmort? Yes. Andrew Weaver? Yes. Nancy English? Yes. Nathaniel Ferguson? Yes. The board finds that all the standards described above have been satisfied and therefore grants the practical difficulty variance. I would entertain a motion to grant this variance. Yes. Andrew Weaver. Yes. Nancy English. Yes. Nathaniel Ferguson. Yes. Okay. Thank you very much and congratulations. And seeing as that was the only item of business on the agenda, anything more before we do a vote to adjourn? I'd entertain a motion to adjourn. We adjourn. Claude Morris. Yes. Andrew Weaver. Yes. Nancy English. Yes. Yes. Good night.