Staff Recommendation Amendment A to Building Permit BP 10559

1
Staff RecommendationAmendment A toBuilding
Permit BP 10559

• Ronald Leavitt
• Lake View Plantation
• Piscataquis County

2
Site Location
3
Site Description
Lot 39 Located on Schoodic Lake
1.27 Acres with 200 Feet of Shoreline Frontage
and More than 100 feet of Road Frontage.
(D-RS) General Development Subdistrict
4
Background

• Previously developed with Pre-LURC seasonal camp.
• Prior to 1999, the seasonal camp was removed at
  the direction of Fleet Banks Trust representing
  the Godsoe Estate.
• In 1999 Ronald Leavitt purchased the property.
• Building Permit BP 10559, issued to Ronald
  Leavitt in September 1999, authorizing
  reconstruction of a seasonal camp served by a
  proposed combined sewage disposal system based on
  reconstruction criteria.

5
Background Continued

• Seasonal camp (22 ft. by 32 ft.)
• Porch (10 ft. by 22 ft.)
• Set back at least 100 feet from the normal high
  water mark of Schoodic Lake, 20 feet from Fire
  Road 13, and at least 15 feet to the nearest
  property boundary line.
• Served by proposed combined sewage disposal
  system and existing driveway.
• Ronald Leavitts permit expired in 2001. The
  permitted seasonal camp with porch was never
  significantly started or constructed and lot 39
  remains undeveloped.

6
Variance Request

• The applicant seeks variance request to construct
  a 24 foot by 40 foot seasonal camp with a (6 foot
  by 10 foot) (12 foot by 16 foot) L-shaped deck
  approximately 100 feet from the normal high water
  mark, 20 feet from Fire Road 13, and at least 15
  feet from the nearest property boundary line.
  The proposed seasonal camp would be served by a
  proposed combined sewage disposal system and
  existing driveway.

7
Proposed Site Plan
8
Variance Request (cont.)

• The applicant states that a variance is
  appropriate because
• The lot can not yield a reasonable return if the
  seasonal camp was constructed more than 200 feet
  from the normal high water mark.
• Constructing the seasonal camp more than 200 feet
  from the normal high water would create an
  imbalance with in the neighborhood.
• To meet current dimensional requirements a
  hardship would be created if the road had to be
  moved.

9
Additional Findings

• In July and August 2004, staff conducted site
  inspections. Staff observed that there was a
  conforming building envelope on the other side of
  Fire Road 13.
• Building envelope of approximately 27 feet by 200
  feet, 50 feet from Fire Road 13 and more than
  100 feet from Schoodic Lake.

10
Building envelope of approximately 27 feet by 200
feet.
11
Review Criteria

• Under provisions of Section 10.26,D,1,(c) the
  minimum setback for residential structures is 50
  feet from road ways such as Fire Road 13.
• Under provisions of Section 10.11,C,2 a legally
  existing nonconforming structure may be
  reconstructed with a permit, provided that the
  permit application is completed within two years
  of damage or removal.

12
Review Criteria (cont.)

• Under provisions of section 10.17 if a
  development or use requiring a permit is not
  substantially started within the time period
  specified in the permit conditions of approval,
  the permit lapses and further development or
  activity is prohibited until a new permit is
  granted.
• 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

13
Review Criteria (cont.)

• 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.
• In order to be granted a variance the petitioner
  must demonstrate, by substantial evidence, that

14
Review Criteria (cont.)

• 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.

15
Conclusion

• 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.
• Development can physically fit on the lot.
• The applicants have not demonstrated that the
  lot cannot yield a reasonable return unless a
  variance is granted.
• The construction of a seasonal camp more than 200
  feet from the normal high water mark of Schoodic
  Lake will still allow a yield for a reasonable
  return.

16
Conclusions (cont.)

• The applicant has not demonstrated by
  substantial evidence that a hardship would be
  created in disapproval of this variance.
• 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 Commissions
  Statutes, 12 M.R.S.A.

17
Staff Recommendation

• Staff recommends disapproval of the variance for
  the proposed seasonal camp with deck by variance
  setback 100 feet from Schoodic Lake and 20 feet
  from Fire Road 13.