Staff Recommendation Amendment D to Building Permit BP 10883

1
Staff Recommendation Amendment D to Building
Permit BP 10883

• Otho and Frances Stanley
• T 3 R 9 NWP
• Penobscot County

2
Site Location and Description

• Cedar Lake
• 0.99 acres
• (D-RS) General Development Subdistrict

3
Administrative History

• Previously developed with Pre-LURC seasonal camp
  and two sheds
• Camp destroyed by fire in 1992
• Sheds converted into seasonal camp
• Shed/kitchen setback 79 feet from Cedar Lake
• Shed/bunkhouse setback 97 feet from Cedar Lake
  and 55 feet from unnamed stream
• Served by primitive sewage disposal system with
  pit privy

4
Bathroom
Bedroom
Walkway
Kitchen
5
Administrative History (cont.)

• Building Permit BP 10883 (August 2000)
• Seasonal Camp (24 ft. by 30 ft.)
• Deck (8 ft. by 15 ft.)
• Setback 79 feet from Cedar Lake and 55 feet from
  unnamed stream
• Shed to be relocated to 100 feet (storage)
• Combined sewage disposal system

6
Administrative History (cont.)

• Denial of Amendment A by Commission (November
  2001)
• Seasonal Camp (24 ft. by 30 ft.)
• Deck (8 ft. by 15 ft.)
• Setback 60 feet from Cedar Lake and 55 feet from
  unnamed stream
• Did not meet 10.11 - More nonconforming with
  respect to waterbody setback

7
Administrative History (cont.)

• Amendment B to BP 10883 issued in August 2002
  (Renewal)
• Camp and Deck setback 79 feet from Lake
• Septic has been installed
• Amendment C to BP 10883 issued in August of 2004
  (Renewal)
• Camp and Deck setback 79 feet from Lake

8
Authorized Camp and Deck
207
Wooded
8x15 Deck
77
Leachfield
Access Rd
Camp 24x30
79
Cedar Lake (202 frontage)
205
Driveway
55
70
Stream
219
Drawing Not to Scale
9
Variance Request

• The applicants propose to construct the seasonal
  camp with deck at 64 feet from Cedar Lake and 55
  feet from the unnamed stream.
• The applicants state that in preparing the site
  the lot has developed a water runoff problem
  which is causing erosion of the soil around the
  septic tank and building site.
• The applicants state that to fix their erosion
  problem they either need a variance to be closer
  to the lake or they would need to cut mature
  trees behind the camp.

10
Proposed Camp and Deck
207
Wooded
8x15 Deck
Leachfield
Access Rd
Camp 24x30
64
Cedar Lake (202 frontage)
205
Driveway
55
Stream
219
Drawing Not to Scale
11
Additional Findings

• Maine State Soil Scientist commented that this
  runoff problem is a minor engineering issue that
  could easily be remedied by installing a curtain
  drain and also by building the foundation up a
  little to prevent water from running onto the
  slab.

12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)
16
Review Criteria

• Section 10.26,D,1 requires that residential
  structures be set back at least 100 feet from
  Cedar Lake and 75 feet from unnamed stream.
• Section 10.10 allows the Commission to grant a
  variance when they find that strict compliance
  with the rules would cause unusual hardship or
  extraordinary difficulties because of the
  following
• Exceptional or unique conditions of topography,
  access, location shape, size or other physical
  features of the site or
• Unusual circumstances that were not anticipated
  by the Commission at the time the rules and
  standards were adopted.

17
Review Criteria (cont.)

• In order to be granted a variance the petitioner
  must demonstrate, by substantial evidence, that
• Land in question cannot yield a reasonable return
  unless a variance is granted
• Need for variance due to the unique circumstances
  of the property and not to the general conditions
  in the neighborhood
• The granting of a variance will not alter the
  essential character of the locality and
• The hardship is not the result of action taken by
  the petitioner or a prior owner or lessee.

18
Conclusions

• The applicant has not demonstrated by substantial
  evidence that the need for the variance is due to
  unique circumstances of the property and not to
  general conditions in the neighborhood.
• Lot has typical conditions for this area.
• The development can physically fit on the lot.
• Erosion and drainage options have not been fully
  addressed.
• The applicants have not demonstrated that the
  land cannot yield a reasonable return unless a
  variance is granted.
• The presence or lack of a seasonal camp and deck
  will still allow the existing sheds to yield a
  reasonable return.

19
Conclusions (cont.)

• This case does not consist of any unusual
  circumstances that were not anticipated at the
  time the standards were adopted.
• The proposal would not meet the Criteria for
  Approval, section 685-B(4) of the Commission's
  Statutes, 12 M.R.S.A.

20
Staff Recommendation

• Staff recommends disapproval of the proposed
  seasonal camp and deck by variance at 64 feet
  from Cedar Lake and 55 feet from the unnamed
  stream.