Town of Otisfield
Planning Board
Public Site Walk
October 21, 2006
Reason for this site walk:
Issue regarding: Reconstruction of a building within 100’ of the shoreline
Falls under the responsibility of the Otisfield Planning Board
Addressed under Otisfield’s Shoreland Zoning Ordinance
Page 4, Section 12 (NON-CONFORMANCE),
Letter C ( Non-Conforming Structure)
Number 3 (Reconstruction or Replacement)
Applicant Name: Charles A. Grasso, Map U7, Lot 19B.
1. Call to order: The Site Walk was called to order at 10:00 AM.
2. Attendance:
PB Members present:
Chairman Rick Micklon
Vice Chair Stan Brett
Dan Peaco
Maureen Howard
Mike McAllister
Shirley Hamilton, Alternate/Recording Secretary
Tanya Taft, PB Secretary
Zak Horton, CEO
Public Attendance: Address Abutter
1. Robert Tracy 12 Martins Way, Otisfield No
2. Peter J. Rogers 652 Scribner Hill, Otisfield No
3. Edward Phillip 40 High Street, S.Paris, ME Yes
4. Cindy Littlefield 1192 Whaley Road, Conway, MA No
5. Kathleen Shaller 154 Sand Hill Road, Groton, MA No
6. William McKay 77A Moar Hill Road, Hollis, NH No
7. Charles A. Grasso 161 Hitching Post Lane, Bedford, NH (Applicant)
8. Michael Hill, 95 Exchange Street, Portland, ME (Attorney)
3. Discussion & Comments:
Site Walk was opened by RM
RM: Recap of the ordinance as it applies today to this applicant.
“Any non-conforming structure [detached building used as a bunkhouse / guest quarters] which is located less than the required setback [Required setback is 100’…the structure was approx. 60’] from the normal high waterline of a water body, tributary stream, or upland edge of a wetland [Thompson Lake] and which is removed, or damaged or destroyed [removed / demolished by the applicant] by more than 50% [100%] of the market value of the structure before such damage, destruction or removal, may be reconstructed or replaced provided that a permit is obtained within one year of the date of said damage, destruction, or removal, [No permit was obtained prior to the start of rebuilding. This is a separate issue and is handled by the Code Enforcement Officer, and we are not addressing
this today.] and provided that such reconstruction or replacement is in compliance with the water setback requirements to the greatest practical extent as determined by the Planning Board, in accordance with the purpose of this Ordinance. [This is exactly why we’re here today.] In no case shall a structure be reconstructed or replaced so as to increase its non-conformity.” [The Planning Board will make its decision on the structure’s non-conformity and new reconstruction location, based upon our findings and conclusions…utilizing the concept of “greatest practical extent.]
Said structure is the guest quarters. All agreed. Discussion re: Shoreland Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Hill (Grasso attorney): “Our position is that this issue falls under the [less than 50% damages] paragraph of the ordinance.” RM: “I currently disagree, but will review the ordinance paragraphs with the PB members, and possibly even AVCOG, while in regular session.”
There is a 100’ setback requirement. Structure is 60’ back. Set-back was always non-conforming. Structure was removed all at once. The square footage and volume are slightly different now. It was 14’x 16’ and is currently 16’x16’with a slight turn from original placement. Peak of roof is approximately the same. (No porch will be added) Lot size is 114’ x 187’. 114’ is at the lakeside. The side set-back was always non-conforming. It is approximately 52’ from the high water mark. RM: Planning Board has to take into consideration (3) important words, from the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance; “Greatest Practical Extent”. Discussion on Erosion Control will be between applicant and Zak. Questions for MMA: What does the grandfather clause entail
and when does it expire? PB noted possible alternate location of structure behind primary camp, uphill, on flattened area at knoll. RM: A 3rd party consultant may be needed. Ross Cutlitz, Oxford County Soil & Water and Scott Williams, Aquatic Biologist, Lake & Watershed Resource Management Associates will do a peer review. Mike Morse, Maine DEP, is the representative for Shoreland Zoning. Contact info for Mike given to applicant for free consultation. RM informed applicant that this might be local jurisdiction. Mr. Grasso objected to CEO and DEP having an onsite visit w/o his approval or knowledge. He stated he has no problem w/ anyone visiting his property, but he wants to be informed so that he may be present.
RM & CEO agree. Applicant will contact TT when they are ready to appear before the Planning Board.
4. Adjournment: 11:45 AM
Respectfully submitted,
Tanya Taft, Recording Secretary
Approved By: ____________________ Approved on: _________
Rick Micklon, Chair
Otisfield Planning Board
TANYA TAFT
| 
