Lincolnville Planning Board approves Nelson camp modification contingent on smaller deck

The Lincolnville Planning Board voted June 24 to approve a modification to a camp on Lot 31 (listed in the application as 12 Loon Spray Lane, also referred to in the record as 12 Moon Cry Lane), contingent on the applicant reducing a proposed deck so the building expansion stays within the shoreland zoning 30% footprint limit.

Applicant Sarah Nelson told the board she sought to “pour a foundation to stabilize the building” and add an upstairs bathroom and reconfigure dormers; she said the proposed addition was intended to be roughly a 30% increase in building footprint but later acknowledged her initial percentage wording was off and discussed square-foot figures with board members. “I would like…to pour a foundation to stabilize the building,” Nelson said while presenting the plan.

Board members and staff raised a discrepancy between the applicant’s drawings and the tax assessor’s records: the plans list the existing footprint at 543.25 square feet while the tax assessor’s record shows 520 square feet. Members calculated that adding roughly 164 square feet for the proposed work would put the structure over the 30% limit if the 543.25 figure is used. One board member noted the town’s shoreland rules count impervious surfaces (driveways, for example) toward lot coverage in shoreland zones, which factored into the board’s evaluation.

To resolve the overage without denying the project, board members proposed a modest design change: reduce the deck depth from 8 feet to 7 feet 6 inches. The applicant said that reduction would be acceptable. “I don’t think that’s a big…solution,” Sarah Nelson said when asked if the change was acceptable.

The board offered two paths: have the applicant modify the deck now to bring the calculated footprint under the 30% threshold or make approval contingent on an in‑field measurement and a revised permit application reflecting the reduced deck. The board agreed to record the deck dimensions on the building‑permit paperwork as 20 feet 6 inches by 7 feet 6 inches.

Beth (recorded in the minutes by first name) moved to approve the application with the contingency that the deck be reduced to 7 feet 6 inches; another member seconded the motion. The chair called the vote and the result was recorded as “all in favor; no opposed.” The transcript does not record a roll‑call tally or list the seconding member by name.

The board also discussed having code enforcement or staff perform a field measurement to resolve the discrepancy between assessor records and the applicant’s plan before final permitting; the board did not require a follow-up hearing but said the permit file should reflect the contingency and any measurements taken.

The board adjourned at the end of the session; no further action on this application was recorded in the transcript.

What happens next: The building‑permit application will be modified to reflect the reduced deck dimensions; staff field verification of the building footprint was discussed as a step prior to final permit issuance.