Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board defers shoreland setback application, requests complete package
Summary
The board reviewed a shoreland zoning application to enlarge a shed and remove trees within a setback but found the submission incomplete (missing deed, DEP permit, septic details and clearer site measurements) and directed staff to request a full package or send the application to the appeals board.
The Harrison Planning Board reviewed a shoreland zoning setback adjustment and building expansion application and concluded the submission lacked essential documentation, prompting the board to defer action and request a complete package.
Acting Chair (S1) told the board the applicants were not present and that the application omitted critical items: a deed or proof of ownership, detailed measurements to show the 20-foot setback, septic design if interior plumbing or a laboratory is intended, and a DEP permit-by-rule since the property lies within 75 feet of the water. "The applicants are not here this evening. We've been told we could proceed without their presence," Acting Chair (S1) said, then later added the board needs the full package before acting.
Committee members debated whether to require a site-plan review and whether approving a modest request would set an undesirable precedent. Committee member (S3) said the expansion likely warrants a site review: "I think I think it warrants the site warrant." Committee member (S4) cautioned against approving something that could set precedent: "I don't think we can be setting the precedent, regardless of how modest it is." The board agreed to seek missing documentation (contractor information and certification for work near water, corrected item classifications on the application form, septic and plumbing permits, a revegetation/tree replacement plan, and proof of ownership) and either place a fuller file before the board or forward a complete package to the appeals board.
The board also discussed tree replacement expectations and the need for a clear revegetation plan if the applicant seeks removal of a fourth tree not originally described in the application. No final approval was issued; the board's direction was to request additional documentation before taking formal action.
