Town of Otisfield
State Route 121, Otisfield, ME 04270
PLANNING BOARD
Conclusions of Law
This document is intended to serve the purpose of detailing the findings, evidence, submittals, oral testimony, and public input regarding an application under consideration of the Otisfield Panning Board. It is the Board’s goal to establish that the applicable project does or does not meet the requirements of the Town of Otisfield’s ordinances, as interpreted by the town’s Planning Board and Code Enforcement Officer. This document serves as the Board’s obligation to provide written “findings” and “conclusions” when preparing a decision.
The review outlined below is the result of due process and is intended to be fair, impartial, and proper.
IN NO WAY SHOULD ANY CONCLUSIONS, AND / OR PENALTIES, BE ASSUMED TO BE PRECEDENT SETTING. THIS PARTICULAR CASE SHALL NOT BE USED AS A MEANS TO ADDRESS FUTURE CASES. WHILE THE FINDINGS OF FACT CRITERIA MAY BE REPEATED IN SIMILAR CASES, THE CONCLUSIONS AND PENALTIES WILL ALWAYS BE ADDRESSED INDEPENDANTLY FROM OTHERS PRIOR TO SUCH CASES.
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
February 20, 2007
Map U7, Lot 19B, Beehive Lane
Applicant: CHARLES GRASSO
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Shoreland Zoning – Thompson Lake
Issue: Reconstruction of a building within 100’ of the shoreline
Administration of the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance falls under the responsibility of the Otisfield Planning Board (PB) and the Code Enforcement Officer (CEO). This authority is detailed on page 1 of the Town of Otisfield Building Ordinance, Section 2 Authority and Administration, letter E.
Addressed under Otisfield’s Shoreland Zoning Ordinance
Page 4, Section 12 (NON-CONFORMANCE),
Letter C ( Non-Conforming Structure)
Number 3 (Reconstruction or Replacement)
This section [and inserted applicable notations] is based on Public Site Walk minutes on 10-21-06:
“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 by the applicant] by more than 50% of the market value of the structure before such damage, destruction or removal, [100% removed] 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] 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. 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…by determining the “greatest practical extent.”]
The criteria for determining “greatest practical extent” is found in the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance, page 4, Section C, #2, paragraph 2. It reads as follows:
“In determining whether the building relocation meets the setback to the greatest practical extent, the Planning Board shall consider the size of the lot, the slope of the land, the potential for soil erosion, the location of other structures on the property and on adjacent properties, the location of the septic system and other on-site soils suitable for septic systems, and the type and amount of vegetation to be removed to accomplish the relocation.”
CONCLUSIONS of LAW:
Based upon performance standards and review criteria, which must be met by the applicant:
THE BOARD FINDS THE FOLLOWING BASIC CONCLUSIONS:
1.The Board concludes that: The structure was removed or destroyed by more then 50% of the market value, prior to the destruction. Motion DP/MH – Unanimous.
2.The Board concludes that: The structure has been rebuilt in the same location as the prior. Motion MH/DP – Unanimous.
3.The Board concludes that: The applicant voluntarily demolished and reconstructed a non-conforming structure. Motion RM/DP – Unanimous.
4.The Board concludes that: The applicant voluntarily demolished and reconstructed a non-conforming structure w/ out proper permitting by the Code Enforcement Officer. Motion RM/MH – Unanimous.
5.The Board concludes that: The applicant immediately stopped construction when he was told he had violated an ordinance,and has been cooperative throughout the whole process. Motion. MH/SB –Unanimous.
6.The Board concludes that: The applicant did not appear before the planning board for the board’s determination of “greatest practical extent” regarding the structure location on the property. Motion RM/MH – Unanimous.
7.The Board concludes that: The power lines would have to be relocated if the location “above and to the left of the bunkhouse” is chosen as practical and preferable. Motion MH/RM – DEFEATED.
8.The Board concludes that: The location of the bunkhouse is practical and preferable to the greatest practical extent. Motion. MH/RM – (4) Yes. (1) No -D.P.
9.The Board concludes that: Section 16. Page 19 of the Otisfield Shoreland Zoning Ordinance, Letter I, # 4, Administration and fines must be discussed in the following section regarding Fines & Penalties. Motion RM/DP – Unanimous.
10.The Board concludes that: the applicant is in violation of this ordinance and should be penalized according to Title 30A, MRSA subsection 4452. Motion. RM/SB – Unanimous.
DECISION for APPROVAL or DENIAL:
Q: Does the PB approve or deny the application for the “after the fact” rebuilding of a structure located at Map U7, Lot 19B, to be located as built?
A. Motion to approve the application. MH/MM – (4) Yes, (1) No- D.P.
Q; If approved, does the PB require the structure to be relocated beyond the 100-foot buffer area adjacent to Thompson Lake?
A. Motion to leave structure where it’s placed. MH/SB – (4) Yes, (1) No - D.P.
Q; If approved, does the PB require any “conditions” be included?
A. Yes. See following conditions.
Q: If approved, does the PB wish to include “special conditions regarding no further expansion in area or volume, nor adding any plumbing fixtures to the bunkhouse”?
A. Yes. See following conditions.
CONDITIONS:
1. Recommendations by Ross Cudlitz and CEO to be followed by applicant regarding erosion control measure, including an approved inspection schedule by the CEO.
2. No further expansions of this structure from this day forward, from today’s date.
Motion to approve both conditions: RM/DP – Unanimous.
EXPANSION ISSUES:
Q: Did any “expansion take place”? If yes, has the applicant submitted an application for such? If not, the CEO must be part of the application process and bring the application to the PB.
A: Yes, expansion took place, is included with the application on file, and will be handled by the CEO. Currently structure size is 16’ x 16’. Original structure was 14’ x 16’. One corner stayed the same, one shifted away from the lake. (If facing water it went to the left)
FINES AND PENALTIES:
Q: Whether approved or denied, does the PB wish to assess a fine, and if so in what amount, for the actions of the applicant that include violations to the Shoreland Zoning Ordinance; for the reconstruction of a non-conforming structure within the 100-foot buffer area adjacent to Thompson Lake without first obtaining a shoreland zoning permit from the Town? NOTE: This fine would be over and above any building permit fees associated with the Code Enforcement Office.
The following amounts were offered by: RM - $2,500.00, MM - $5,000.00, MH - $500.00,
DP - $5,000.00, SB - $2,000.00, SH - $640.00
Discussion followed regarding the amounts and reasoning.
Motion to assess a one time fine and penalty to the applicant in the amount of $2,500, to be considered by the Otisfield Board of Selectmen. RM/SB – For: (3) – MH, DP, RM (2) Against:
Applicant is advised to contact Marianne Izzo-Morin to be added to the Selectmen’s agenda.
THEREFORE, the Town of Otisfield Planning Board hereby approves the application of Charles Grasso to reconstruct a structure (bunkhouse), located on Map U7, Lot 19B, Beehive Lane, as described in the application and Findings of Fact. This approval is to include the above-mentioned conditions and monetary fine and penalty as fully described above.
These proceedings are dated at Otisfield, Maine, this 20th day of February, 2007
Otisfield Planning Board
By: _____________________________________________
Richard L. Micklon, Chairman
Date of signature: __________________________________
NOTE: This document shall be reviewed and approved by the Town’s Board of Selectmen, and recorded by the Town of Otisfield in the Oxford County Registry of Deeds.
| 
