Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shoreland Resource Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Selectmen, planning board clash over Fisher property studio in shoreland resource zone
Summary
Town counsel told a prospective buyer that a studio with cooking, sleeping and toilet facilities is treated as a residential dwelling under town rules and by the State Department of Environmental Protection; the board and Planning Board discussed moving the structure or limiting its use to avoid violation.
Town counsel told a prospective buyer on Nov. 28 that a studio on the Fisher property in Cushing’s shoreland resource protection zone likely meets the town’s definition of a residential dwelling unit if it contains cooking, sleeping and a toilet, and that the State Department of Environmental Protection enforces that standard.
Attorney Kristin Collins told the Board of Selectmen that the town could consider resolving the matter by a consent agreement but could not include terms that would itself violate the town ordinance. Collins said the simplest way to avoid classification as a dwelling would be to ensure the three elements are not simultaneously present; she warned that placing a portable toilet outside the studio would likely still leave all three elements served and therefore would not solve the problem.
The prospective buyer, identified in the minutes as Mr. Windzio, said he is under contract to buy the property and would prefer some assurance before closing. He said he would consider removing the composting toilet and using the studio only for daytime support during construction of an off-site bunkhouse and bathroom, but he expressed concern that even limited use could prompt neighbor complaints and repeated visits from the Code Enforcement Officer.
Planning Board Chairman Daniel Remian and member Robert Ellis said the Planning Board’s preferred remedy for the longstanding violation is to move the structure off its present shoreland location. The minutes record two moving-cost estimates cited by attendees: roughly $6,000 to move the building using a horse-and-pulley method (found by Scott Bickford) and about $7,500 for crane moving (via Art Henry Crane Services and David Glidden), plus tree‑cutting and coordination with the Code Enforcement Officer.
Ellis urged the Selectmen not to allow a prospective buyer to seek a consent arrangement that might appear to circumvent Planning Board processes and DEP oversight; he said any consent agreement should involve the current owner and cautioned that acting without Planning Board review could undermine the Board’s work and transparency. Chair Alton Grover and Selectman Laurie Haynes said the topic had been discussed in executive session with counsel and that legal consultation is within the board’s authority.
The town did not take a formal vote on a consent agreement at the meeting. Collins advised the buyer that obtaining a written statement or guidance from DEP could prompt the board to re-evaluate, but she said the town would not spend town resources to obtain that determination on the buyer’s behalf. The minutes show the board asked the buyer to consult DEP and his own attorney and to return with any documentation.
Next steps noted in the minutes: the buyer will contact DEP and report back to the town; Planning Board members pressed for compliance by moving the structure as the primary remedy; no consent agreement was finalized.
