Town of Otisfield
Planning Board
Public Site Walk
May 16, 2007
Applicant Name: Mr. Ronald Lawton Map U-7, Lot 19E - Beehive Lane,
Represented by: Dana Hanley & Associates, Legal Counsel for the applicant
Dana Hanley, Rachael Pierce
Reasons for this site walk:
Issue regarding:~ Reconstruction of a building within 100’ of the shoreline, without town or state permits.
~ Greatest Practical Extent Determination
Falls under the responsibility of the Otisfield Planning Board
Addressed under Otisfield’s Shoreland Zoning Ordinance
Section 12 (NON-CONFORMANCE),
Letter C (Non-Conforming Structures)
Number 3 (Reconstruction or Replacement)
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.”
1. Call to order: The Site Walk was called to order at 5:00 PM.
2. Attendance:
PB Members present:
Chairman Rick Micklon
Vice Chair Stan Brett - ABSENT
Dan Peaco
Maureen Howard
Mike McAllister
Shirley Hamilton, Alternate/Recording Secretary
Jean Hankins, Alternate
Planning Board Secretary: Tanya Taft
Code Enforcement Officer: Richard St. John
3. Introduction of Otisfield Board of Selectmen present at this meeting.
Mark Cyr, Tom Nurmi, Hal Ferguson
4. Introduction of the applicants: ABSENT
(Introduce any other associates or counsel.) Rachael Pierce
5. Introduction of any consultants attending on behalf of the Planning Board.
(Not in attendance at this time per the recommendation of the Board)
6. Public Attendance: Address Abutter
Only applicants representation, PB members, Secretary, BOS & CEO were in attendance.
7. Discussion & Comments:
Site-Walk was opened by RM. PB observed & discussed the intermittent stream and erosion issues caused by it. They looked at the privy in the ROW and discussed that a waiver may be granted to allow the structure to be within setback of the ROW. RM explained that it didn’t necessarily mean moving the ROW. The PB discussed the 18’ distance that DEP is recommending the structure be moved to. Moving the structure to the suggested distance brings the building back to a fallen log and large boulder. RM answered questions about the ROW and explained that the deed does not specify where the ROW is. RM, also made note that a ROW does not necessarily pertain to vehicular access. Mark Cyr: The rainwater falls from the bunkhouse onto the shoreline. Rachael Pierce: Should the structure stay
where it is, the applicants intend to put a new gutter system in to capture the storm water runoff. RM explained scenario that should structure be moved back, the newly exposed terrain would need to be re-vegetated, but would also invite people to congregate & recreate within the 18 foot area, thus creating excessive soil/vegetative/duff disturbance. The PB walked up the hill to look at the possibility of 100’ back. They discussed possible septic system locations as well.
8. Adjournment: 6:30 PM
| 
