Town of Otisfield
Planning Board Meeting Minutes
September 15, 2015
1. Call to Order: The regular meeting was called to order at 7:00 PM by Chair - Karen Turino.
2. Attendance: Members present were Chair – Karen Turino, Vice Chair – Beth Damon, Rick Jackson, David McVety, Alternate – David Hyer & Alternate – Stan Brett. (Absent – Recording Secretary – Rick Jackson & Herb Olsen) *David & Stan were both moved up as voting members.
Code Enforcement Officer: Richard St. John
Planning Board Secretary: Tanya Taft
3. Announcement of Quorum: Board had a quorum.
4. Approve Secretary’s Report:
A. Special Meeting Minutes August 25, 2015 *Motion to accept minutes as amended. DM/DH – Unanimous.
B. Site Walk Minutes – September 8, 2015*Motion to accept minutes as amended. BD/SB – Unanimous.
5. Discussion & Comments from public:
A. None.
6. Residence - Based Business Applications:
A. None.
7. Shoreland Zoning Applications:
A. Elaine Gilman; 93 Heniger Park Rd, Tax Map R-09, Lot 068. Applicant would like to construct a new cabin on an existing non-conforming lot within 100’ of Pleasant Lake. Jeff Gilman speaking on behalf of his mom. They are looking to construct a cedar log cabin 32’ in length 20’ in width, including an 8’ porch with septic designed for one bedroom. To move it to the 100’ mark, a lot of clearing would need to be done. If it were to stay where it is, it would not be necessary to disturb as much growth. The high-water mark does go into the beach. CEO: It is not a steep slope. Back of the lot is heavily vegetated. Jeff: The cabin would be built in place. BD: Are you taking down the tool shed and the outhouse? Jeff: We were thinking of keeping the outhouse, but it can be removed if it needs to be. Hal
Ferguson: Just would like to mention, that the level of Pleasant Lake is lower now than it will be in the future. We got an agreement with the State this year. It could in fact be a foot higher than it has been after the dam is replaced. SB: I feel it needs to be back the 100’. KT: If it went back to the 100’ would the 6 trees be left? Jeff: Yes. KT: Feels a site walk is necessary. All agree. *Motion to have a site walk. BD/SB – Unanimous. Site Walk, Tuesday October 6th @ 5:30PM. TT will post on website. *Tabled until an upcoming meeting.
8. Site Plan Applications:
A. Community of the Resurrection; Represented by Jason Potter: Map R-10 Lot 020A. New attached 50 seat Chapel. Site Walk held September 8, 2015. Jason: The basement is unfinished. Actual square footage is not calculated as of tonight, because of recent changes, but it has been reduced since original application. Upon further reflection it was decided to keep the bathroom in there. KT would like to suggest this is an accessory structure. I feel this chapel is an adjunct to your home. DM: No regular services, a lot less people, I don’t see the need to refer to Site Plan for this. If you go to Site Plan review and look at applicability. The only thing that’s applicable is the sq. ft is over 500’. Beyond that I think it meets the use, not having an impact. CEO: Read aloud the definition of accessory use from Town
Definitions: It would be considered part of the principle structure. Applicant has no intention of changing the use at all. Sister: The mission is the same and it would be a little more comfortable for us. The extra bedrooms that were to replace the old chapel is no longer part of the remodel plan. The revised plans do reflect this. CEO: Agrees with KT, this is just an enlargement of a principal structure and does not require Site Plan Review. *Motion that we revisit the original vote that put it at Site Plan Review; and based on the revised application and new information from the Sept. 8th Site Walk, it significantly changed it to an “expansion of a building” . Therefore, this application does not qualify for Site Plan Review. SB/DM – Unanimous.
9. Subdivision Application:
A. None.
10. Upcoming Dates:
A. Planning Board Meeting, October 20, 2015 at 7:00 PM.
11. Discussion & comments from Code Enforcement Officer:
A. Maine; 2015 SLZ proposed guidelines: (CEO handed out at the May meeting PB members were also given a set of questions by the CEO and were asked to decide how they wanted to treat the issues in a revised SLZ ordinance based on the new guidelines.) *SEE SEPARATE DOCUMENT
12. Discussion & comments from Board:
A.
13. Adjournment: With no further business, the regular meeting was adjourned at 9:26 PM. HO/SB – Unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Tanya Taft, Secretary
Approved by: Karen Turino, Chair
Otisfield Planning Board
Approved on: October 20, 2015
| 
