Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Shoreland Resource Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board tells Upper Narrows applicant to redesign; lot in 250-foot resource-protection zone
Summary
An applicant proposing an addition at 23 North Upper Narrows Lane was advised to redesign after staff and board members concluded the property lies in the state-defined 250-foot resource-protection zone, which bars new structures without DEP approval. The board recommended resubmission with clearer earthwork and retaining-wall details.
Get email alerts on the Shoreland Resource Protection topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Winthrop Planning Board advised the homeowner proposing an addition at 23 North Upper Narrows Lane to redraw plans after staff concluded the lot falls inside the state-mandated 250-foot resource-protection setback.
The applicant (Resident, S7) said the project would add ground-level garage/storage for equipment and bedrooms above, and that most fill and rock would be reused on-site. Committee members pressed for clearer plans showing how the slope and drainage would be contained, where a rock retaining wall would sit and where a mulch berm for erosion control would be placed. "State guidance says if it's resource protection, it's 250 feet, no building. Period," a committee member (Committee member, S5) told the applicant, summarizing the board's legal constraint. The applicant responded that his map showed the area as a "pink block" and that he believed earlier advice had suggested a smaller setback.
Board staff and members said the town's table had previously shown an incorrect 100-foot figure but that the ordinance text and state DEP guidance require a 250-foot resource-protection setback. The applicant was told he could either redesign to remain outside the 250-foot line or pursue any relief through DEP; the board requested a rewritten narrative in the application that spells out earthwork, the proposed retaining-wall location and revised impervious-cover numbers. The board also suggested direct contact with the town code officer and DEP for definitive interpretation and agreed to follow up with the applicant.
The board did not take formal action other than to instruct the applicant to revise and resubmit with the requested clarifications; staff flagged the application for follow-up with the code officer.

