A building project on the Back Cove Rd. that is in violation of the town’s land use ordinance was the topic of discussion at the Waldoboro Planning Board meeting on Feb. 11.
Board members plan to walk the site where the construction of a new building has already started and a stop work order has been issued.
Confusion over setback requirements, criteria established by previous Code Enforcement Officers and the disparities between what the rules are and what the landowner understood are at the center of this complex issue.
According to a memo addressed to the Board from Planning and Development Director Patrick Wright, Code Enforcement Officer John Black issued a repair and addition permit to the landowner for a 10-foot by 14-foot building within the shoreland setback in 2006.
Wright said the permit Black issued was not well documented and it only commented that the addition be under 1000 square feet. Wright, referencing the land use ordinance, said any additional structure could not be closer to a body of saltwater than the principal structure. The memo implies that the permit Black issued did not address this land use ordinance rule.
“I would expect any permit within the shoreland zone, particularly pertaining to a non-conforming structure to have clearer written direction and documentation,” Wright said.
The building was subsequently torn down and the foundation for a new building was poured following site work. According to Wright, CEO Darryl McKenney visited the site in June 2008 where he told the landowner the project could continue, provided the one story structure would not exceed the size of the foundation that had been poured (14 feet by 20 feet).
A stop-work order was issued after a follow-up inspection of the site when Wright, who is also the town’s Code Enforcement Officer, learned the building permit had expired in July 2008.
According to Attorney Jonathan Hull of Newcastle, who represents an abutting landowner, the building project on land owned by the Country Club Trust had already started with a frame for a studio. Hull said this project is roughly 34 feet set back from the shoreline high water mark, when it should be a minimum of 100 feet.
Wright said the building project should have come before the Planning Board to help facilitate it with the setback requirements. He referred to the land use ordinance, which states that when more than 50 percent of the building was removed, the project needed to come before the Board.
Wright said he recommend the Board deny an after-the-fact building permit to the greatest practical extent, as the new construction does not meet setback requirements. He said the attorney representing the land owner hopes to enter a consent agreement with the Board of Selectmen, which Wright and Town Manager William Post have requested the Planning Board weigh in on.
Ultimately, the decision is up to the Board of Selectmen. In theory, selectmen can then choose not to pursue a violation of the shoreland zoning requirements, Wright said.
“The input staff (Wright and Post) is seeking from the Planning Board is done out of courtesy to the abutting landowner and to facilitate transparency in government, especially given the difficult circumstances of this case,” Wright said.
Hull recommended Waldoboro require the building be moved back to the setback requirement to the fullest possible extent. The Board tabled the issue until some sort of decision can be made following their site walk.
