October 20, 2017  9:24 PM 
September 20, 2017
Other Notices
October 13, 2017
September 20, 2017

SHAPLEIGH PLANNING BOARD

MINUTES

Tuesday, August 22, 2017

Members in attendance: Steve Foglio (Vice Chairman), Madge Baker, Roland Legere, and Maggie Moody, as well as Barbara Felong (Secretary). Chairman Roger Allaire and Alternate Ann Harris were unable to attend. Code Enforcement Officer Steven McDonough was also in attendance.

Steve F. chaired the meeting in Roger Allaire’s absence.

**************************

The planning board meeting started at 7:30 p.m.

The minutes from Tuesday August 8, 2017 were accepted as read.

Minutes are not verbatim, unless in quotes “”

**************************

Conditional Use Permit – Create a Parking Area – Map 23, Lot 2-9 (22 Dancehall Drive) – Roland ‘Russ’ Batson, Applicant & Owner

Mr. Batson was present for the review of the application.

At the first meeting, along with the application, received was a copy of the soils report for this location, which noted the soils were Colton and drained well; a letter from Site Evaluator John Large, SE #7, dated 4/25/88 which was for a test pit dug on site that found the soils on site to be similar to a deep Colton, and therefore, the criteria for a system would have the highest possible rating. It was also noted in the letter that this was for information gathering but was not an application for a new system. Also submitted was a sketch plan depicting the location of the proposed parking area, and entrance to the site with clockwise turn around area, which in part follows the CMP utility easement.

The project description on the application states: A parking area using “CMP Road”, and “Loop” like drive thru, with back sloping drainage system.

Board members did a site inspection prior to this evenings meeting.

Steve F. stated there were a few questions from the site inspection. Steve asked Mr. Batson to give a quick overview of what he wanted to do. Mr. Batson stated, “They don’t have a drawing but basically I am putting a driveway in. I would like to put a driveway in from the top of the plateau, to within 125 of the cottage. Clockwise coming out, all drainage will be into the core of this half-moon driveway. And after the site review it was suggested that I count and mark the potential trees for removal. There is one oak, 2 birch, 7 white pine, two are 16 dbh, white pine is less than 12. A bunch of hemlock between 4 and 8 inches, 3 to 5 saplings, a total of 20 trees. Most are not marketable.”

Mr. Batson asked if the board wanted him to answer the question about the engineered Lego blocks? Mr. Batson said he was asked if the big 2 x 2 x 4 foot blocks would be engineered and so he found on the internet, that depending on the height, Genest mandates a big one on the bottom and then smaller ones. He noted that the block he was showing the board may not be the one he was using but that there are blocks available that can be done this way. Roland L. asked how high the wall drawing he was showing was? Mr. Batson said he didn’t know, he said it varies.

Page 1 of 14

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 8-22-17 Page 2 of 14

CEO Mcdonough asked if there was a retaining wall on the plan? Mr. Batson said, “No.”

Steve F. asked Mr. Batson how high the wall would be? Mr. Batson said he would like to go chest height with the wall. Steve asked, “5 feet?” Mr. Batson said, “More than 4 and there was some talk that anything over 4 feet needs to have an engineered drawing, and I would like to ask if I was using an engineered truss would you like me to get it re-engineered?” CEO McDonough replied, “No, but I would require the engineered drawings.” Mr. Batson said, “OK, if I get a pre-certified engineered drawing that goes with the product is that acceptable?” CEO McDonough said, “It is for me.” Mr. Batson said, “OK.” CEO McDonough said, “But there is no retaining wall on the plan.” Mr. Batson said that was correct, he only gave the board a sketch. Mr. Batson said there is a retaining wall because he had to hold back the earth on the downhill side, because with the law of diminishing returns, he would be throwing sand way down in order to get the slope. He added that he didn’t know putting the wall on the plan would be required.

Steve F. said, “We see a variety of drawings come across the table and in this particular case it will be very helpful for you and the board to show from a horizontal view what we are dealing with, and I don’t think it is much of an option for us, that if it is over four feet, it has to be certified by somebody.” Mr. Batson believed it would be just as easy to get it engineered. Steve said at this point the board can table it. CEO McDonough stated that if the board is going to table it, if there are any other issues that need to be addressed, you may want to tell the applicant. Madge B. stated there were.

Steve F. believed the majority of the issues would be covered by the engineered plan. Madge B. said there is a large amount of earth moving, and the board would want to know how much for the record. Steve said the slope of the driveway needed to be addressed. Madge said the driveway may be constrained by the slope. Mr. Batson stated that Jeff Goodwin, the person doing the work, was certified by the DEP. CEO McDonough stated that he was erosion control certified. Mr. Batson thought this was important. CEO McDonough stated that this did not give him professional credentials for the project overall, other than how to install silt fencing; he does not have certified designing skills.

Madge B. stated it was important to go over 105-59, which refers to the banks, slopes, and drainage ditches, so that needs to be on the plan. Madge said the setback has been met, it is farther than 100 feet from the water.

Mr. Batson said his concern was a good mechanic, excavator, in the field with 35 years’ experience might do a better job than a team of engineers and surveyors putting benchmarks on the ground and in the tree, just because that is how some people work. I will get an engineered drawing with the setbacks and slopes. Madge B said the slopes is an issue, making certain it conforms to the ordinance.

Mr. Batson asked Roland L. if he had a question? Roland L. stated, “I have a response to the comment about someone in the field being able to do something as well or better than someone who just works theoretically; the problem with that from the Planning Board perspective is, when the applicant comes to us, something is approved and then if someone decides to change it because something better meets the situation, this creates quite a problem for the board when questioned why was ‘that’ approved. When in fact it wasn’t approved, because ‘this’ was and it got changed. You have to understand where the board is coming from, we have to enforce the ordinance.”

Roland L. said, when the board was shown where the distribution box (septic) was and where all the lines went out, Mr. Batson mentioned he might inquire how much of a load it might support. Mr. Batson said he could but he said he didn’t mention it. Roland thought he heard it mentioned that Mr. Batson would ask John Gallant for example, how much this type of pipe would support. He said then they started talking about utilities and the existing roadway, he just wanted to understand. Mr. Batson said, “The pipe is very deep.”

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 8-22-17 Page 3 of 14

Roland L. moved that the board table the application until there is an engineered drawing addressing the slope and the construction of the retaining wall, and all that that entails. Roland noted there is specific language in the ordinance that has to be addressed.

Mr. Batson said that the slope wouldn’t be near the concerns in the ordinance. Madge B. stated the board needed the documentation for the record that it meets the ordinance requirements.

Steve F. stated the trees being removed should be on the plan. Mr. Batson thought that would be too much information on the plan. Madge B. stated there had to be a plan where the replacement trees would be located. Steve said, “The replant plan.”

CEO McDonough stated the section that he felt applied was 105-51, Section C. Madge said it may be ok. CEO McDonough agreed but the applicant has to prove it to the board. CEO McDonough asked Mr. Batson to call him if he had questions.

Madge B. 2nd the motion to table. All members were in favor. The motion to table passed unanimously by a vote of 4 – 0.

Nothing further was discussed.

-------------------------------------

Conditional Use Permit – Replace Existing Retaining Wall – Map 26, Lot 37 (114 21st Street) – Tyler Matthews, Applicant; Steve Singlar, Property Owner

Mr. Matthews was present for the review of the application.

Board members received along with the application, a sketch plan depicting the ‘location’ of the existing wall on site and noting it was 36” high and 50 feet long; a sketch plan of the ‘construction’ of the new wall showing it to be 33 inches in height, made of concrete block and having crushed stone, filter fabric and a drainage pipe behind; and a copy of the MDEP Permit by Rule approved by Cameron Adams on 6/20/17.

The project description on the application states: Removing existing concrete wall & replacing it with a new concrete block retaining wall. Same size and same location.

Steve F. asked Mr. Matthews to let the board know what the property owner would like to do. Mr. Matthews stated he was replacing the concrete wall, same size, and same location with a new concrete wall.

Roland L. said, “You are going to change the steps though, the steps are protruding out.” Mr. Mathews said, “Yes, the steps are just sitting in there, the stairs will go back toward the house, away from the water.”

Roland L. said, “The existing block material will be taken out of town?” Mr. Matthews stated, “Yes, I am guessing Sanford Public Works. It will be crushed up for gravel.”

Roland L. said the planned removal won’t take place until the large pine tree is removed. Mr. Matthews said the plan was to take the trees down first. Roland believed there will be three taken. Steve F. said Mr. Matthews stated he was permitted to take all three down now. Mr. Matthews agreed.

Steve F. said the boards concern was for anywhere it abuts the neighbor’s wall, for the record can you state what is going to happen there. Mr. Matthews stated the neighbor that the concrete wall is painted, that will be cut and ended right there. The other side is the in-laws, we will be careful on that side to leave the corner piece to hold their wall in and butt the wall into that.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 8-22-17 Page 4 of 14

Roland L stated there will have to be some revegetating behind the wall, due to crushed stone going in. Mr. Matthews agreed, as there would be the crushed stone and drainage going behind the wall. He said it would be topped with loam and seeded. Roland asked if the applicant would consider something other than grass; preferably something that doesn’t need to be fertilized which leaches into the soil. Mr. Matthews asked about flowers? He said he hadn’t discussed it yet with the owners. Roland said he would prefer a mulch berm to control runoff or groundcover such as Juniper or Hostas. He said grass is high maintenance. Mr. Matthews thought he could discuss doing a planting in that area.

Roland L. asked about the tree closest to the wall, will it be removed or ground down? Mr. Matthews stated, “Ground down.” Roland said this would be another area that needs to be mulched or have ground cover. Steve F. asked if the tree was being removed prior to the project? Mr. Matthews stated, “Yes.” Steve asked what the time line was? Mr. Matthews stated, “Middle of September.” Steve said, “So the tree will be gone, stump ground, then you will move on.” Mr. Matthews stated, “That is the plan.”

Steve F. stated the board was required to ask what was going to be put into place for replanting. There should be a replant plan for the section above the road. Mr. Matthews said he would do a replant of Hostas, native plants and mulch. He believed he could talk the client into that. Maggie M. stated it had to be placed on the plan. Roland asked if he could draw it on the plan? The board had no issue with him drawing it on the plan. Steve also asked that the stairs be placed on the plan as well, so when CEO McDonough goes to the site, he will know what was approved, since this was a change to what was existing. Mr. Matthews drew the changes on the plan.

Madge B. asked if there would be soil that had to be moved, because stone goes behind the wall? Mr. Matthews said a small amount of soil will have to come out. Madge said they would have to have on record that the blocks will be removed from the site. Mr. Matthews said, “Yes.”

Madge B. said the board needed a time line, how long will it take. Steve F. asked for a completion date. Madge said the board can’t have the project start, then left open for erosion reasons. Mr. Matthews believed he would be finished mid-October. He said the job itself would take less than a week once started. Madge said the planting needs to be done before it is too late.

Steve F. asked what was going in for the planting plan? Mr. Matthews stated he would have Hostas, and they have used blueberries. Steve asked if he needed to talk to the homeowners? Mr. Matthews said he was fine with his decision. He then gave the board a copy of the sketch with the stairs and replanting plan. The plan stated mulched flowers, native shrubs & Hostas behind wall. Steve asked CEO McDonough to look at the plan. CEO McDonough would have liked the number of shrubs to be planted on the plan. He asked if there would be a shrub every five feet? Mr. Matthews stated, “There will be more than that.” He stated that his applicants wanted it to look good.

CEO McDonough asked about the tree being removed, was there a replanting plan for it already? Mr. Matthews stated, “Yes.” CEO McDonough stated he wanted it added that the tree removal is in conjunction with the permit for the wall, that the area where the tree is located will be revegetated.

Steve F. asked if there were any questions. There were none.

Steve F. then reviewed §105-73.G ‘Standards applicable to conditional uses’ and made findings of fact.

Standards applicable to conditional uses. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed use meets all of the following criteria. The Board shall approve the application unless it makes written findings that one or more of these criteria have not been met.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 8-22-17 Page 5 of 14

1) The use will not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, birds or other wildlife habitat. Steve F. stated, it will not, the wall repair will protect aquatic life.

2) The use will conserve shore cover and visual, as well as actual, access to water bodies. Steve F. stated the wall repair will conserve shore cover, along with the replanting plan.

3) The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Steve F. stated the Comprehensive Plan wants the lakes and water quality protected.

4) Traffic access to the site is safe. Steve F. stated, this is not applicable.

5) The site design is in conformance with all municipal flood hazard protection regulations. Steve F. stated this is not in a flood zone.

6) Adequate provision for the disposal of all wastewater and solid waste has been made. Steve F. stated that the blocks and waste material will be hauled off site, to an appropriate location for disposal or recycling. Mr. Matthews stated the blocks would go to Sanford Town Yard; the aggregate, which should be minimal, will also go to this location.

7) Adequate provision for the transportation, storage and disposal of any hazardous materials has been made. Steve F. stated that there is none generated by this activity.

8) A stormwater drainage system capable of handling fifty-year storm without adverse impact on adjacent properties has been designed. Steve F. stated the wall built as designed will help mitigate stormwater drainage.

9) Adequate provisions to control soil erosion and sedimentation have been made. Steve F. stated best management practices will be used until the job is completed, including replanting of vegetation.

10) There is adequate water supply to meet the demands of the proposed use and for fire protection purposes. Steve F. stated, this is N/A.

11) The provisions for buffer strips and on-site landscaping provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development, such as noise, glare, fumes, dust, odors and the like. Steve F. stated the wall will not harm the neighboring properties as proposed.

12) All performance standards in this chapter applicable to the proposed use will be met. Steve F. stated they shall with conditions.

The conditions of approval are:

1) The project, including replanting of vegetation behind the wall and where the trees are to be removed, shall be completed by October 15, 2017.

2) Best Management Practices shall be used until the project is completed.

3) The existing wall is to be removed and taken out of Shapleigh, and disposed of properly.

4) A building permit must be obtained from the Code Enforcement Officer, prior to the construction of the new wall.

Madge B. moved for approval of the Condition Use Permit to replace the existing retaining wall with the above stated conditions. Maggie M. 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. By a vote of 4 – 0, the motion to approve was unanimous.

Nothing else was discussed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Findings of Facts

1. The owner of Shapleigh Tax Map 26, Lot 37 (114 21st Street), is Steve Singlar of 30 Blackford Place, Exeter, NH 03833.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 8-22-17 Page 6 of 14

2. The property itself is located in the Shoreland District and according to the assessor the property contains .22 acres.

3. The application description reads as follows: Removing existing concrete wall & replacing it with a new concrete block retaining wall. Same size & same location.

4. Received was a sketch plan depicting the ‘location’ of the existing wall on site and noting it was 36” high and 50 feet long; and a sketch plan of the ‘construction’ of the new wall showing it to be 33 inches in height, made of concrete block and having crushed stone, filter fabric and a drainage pipe behind.

5. Received was a copy of the MDEP Permit by Rule approved by Cameron Adams on 6/20/17.

6. Received was an amended sketch plan, dated 8/22/17, which depicts the location of the replacement retaining wall, stairs going back into the hill from the wall, and a replanting plan consisting of native shrubs and Hostas, along with bark mulch.

7. The board reviewed Zoning Ordinance §105-39, ‘Earth removal and filling other than mineral exploration and extraction’ and concurred that this project met all the criteria under Section D ‘Earthmoving in the Shoreland District’; noting the material being used behind the new wall was appropriate for the project, and the area will be properly mulch and revegetated, exposing the soil for the shortest about of time possible. In addition, materials from the existing wall shall be removed off-site and taken to the proper facility.

8. The board reviewed Zoning Ordinance §105-73, Section G, ‘Standards applicable to conditional uses’ and concurred the application and information as presented met the performance standards in this chapter, with conditions.

9. A notice was mailed to all abutters within 500 feet of the property on August 9, 2017. Meetings were held on August 8, 2017 and August 22, 2017. A site inspection was done on August 22, 2017 by members.

10. The Planning Board unanimously agreed to approve the Conditional Use Permit to replace the existing retaining wall, 50 feet long and 33 inches in height per the plans provided, on property known as Tax Map 26, Lot 37, with conditions.

11. The conditions of approval are:

1) The project, including replanting of vegetation behind the wall and where the trees are to be removed, shall be completed by October 15, 2017.

2) Best Management Practices shall be used until the project is completed.

3) The existing wall is to be removed and taken out of Shapleigh, and disposed of properly.

4) A building permit must be obtained from the Code Enforcement Officer, prior to the construction of the new wall.

----------------------------------------

Conditional Use Permit – Replace Existing Retaining Wall – Map 27, Lot 23 (22 Point Road) – Tyler Matthews, Applicant; Nicole Sampson, Property Owner

Mr. Matthews was present for the review of the application.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 8-22-17 Page 7 of 14

Board members received, along with the application, a sketch plan depicting the location of the deck to be replaced with patio, wall to be replaced and where erosion control measures will be placed; a sketch plan depicting the replacement wall being made of concrete block with crushed stone behind, filter fabric, and drain pipe, with an attached patio made of pavers. The wall will be 39 inches in height.

The project description on the application states: Removing an existing rotted retaining wall & patio & replacing it with a stone wall & patio. Same location.

Steve F. noted the board received a letter from abutters, William and Eileen Mageary which stated they were immediate abutters and had no issue with the replacement of the retaining wall.

Steve F. asked Mr. Matthews to state what the property owner intended to do. Mr. Matthews stated Ms. Sampson wanted to remove an old railroad tie retaining wall, holding up a floating pressure treated patio; both to be replaced with a stone wall and paver patio.

Madge M. asked if when they replace the wall if they will also dig out and put crushed stone in behind? Mr. Matthews said yes, along with drainage pipe and filter fabric. Steve F. asked if the manufacturer had a data sheet with specifics? Mr. Matthews asked if he was speaking about the blocks? He said there was probably some literature on it, he wasn’t sure. CEO McDonough asked how tall the wall was going to be? Steve stated, “39 inches.” CEO McDonough was sure the company had some kind of literature for range of force and height.

Roland L. asked about the pavers on the top, ‘are they impervious with stone dust, can moisture go thru or will it run over the top of the wall’. Mr. Matthews said, “More goes over the top of the wall to be honest with you. It’s a hard dust and it does run in that direction.” Roland asked if it was mortared in? Mr. Matthews stated, “No.” Roland asked CEO McDonough if they ever put a low spot to capture the rainwater, so it would go down into the earth? CEO McDonough did not see why not. Roland said there is quite abit of square footage. Mr. Matthews said he would rather put gutters up and disperse it sideways. Steve F. stated it was a concern because instead of going down below the pressure treated deck, we are creating more runoff and potentially causing problems with both roof water and runoff from the patio. Mr. Matthews noted there was some established vegetation that would absorb some of it. The board agreed. Roland noted the grade was steep, and said if something could be done, it would be helpful. Mr. Matthews agreed and said again he felt gutters would help.

Madge B. asked if fill or soil would be brought in? Mr. Matthews stated there would be minimal fill added. He said, crushed stone for behind the wall. Maggie M. wondered if they could add bushes around the sides of the patio to prevent runoff. Madge noted there was no soil to put it in. Mr. Matthews agreed, it was straight down. Madge didn’t know how this could be accomplished and noted there was vegetation below the wall. Steve F. was concerned about creating a water problem due to the slope.

Roland L. asked if the pavers would cover the same square footage as the existing pressure treated deck? Mr. Matthews stated, “Yes.” Roland said it was close to 500 square feet, which is quite abit of area. Roland asked if the equipment would travel, while facing the home on the left hand side, and after the area will be reclaimed to original condition after the project is completed. Mr. Matthews stated, “Yes.”

Roland L. said they spoke of the silt fence and the possible need for hay bales, as well, due to the steepness of the slope. Mr. Matthews stated, “Correct.”

Steve F. asked if there were additional questions?

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 8-22-17 Page 8 of 14

Madge B. asked if best management practices would be used, even if it is set back from the water? Mr. Matthews stated, probably silt fence and bales of hay. CEO McDonough said in the last 10 minutes he heard a lot of concerns from the board but had not heard how they would be addressed. Steve F. asked what his concern was? CEO McDonough said he had no issue but has heard about a large area of impervious surface and there has been no solution. Steve said the boards concern was creating a water issue with this solid surface and the roof range. CEO McDonough agreed. Mr. Matthews stated there was a problem now due to the failing wall and all the roof water is just going down the hill. He believed putting gutters up would work. Madge asked if gutters were put up, if they could also put down spouts to a catch basin? Mr. Matthews believed going out with the gutters to both sides, the woods would slow the water down. Madge asked how far back the wall was from the water? Mr. Matthews said roughly, perhaps 30 feet. Roland said it was a 45 degree angle down. Steve had no issue with gutters, but now there is a lot of water going to one spot. He didn’t feel there needed to be an engineered catch basin but something should be created to slow the water down.

Roland L. said his concern was that as well constructed as it can be, there are low spots and stairs, with this 500 square foot area, some of the water will go down the stairwell, so if something can be done to minimize the amount of water on the patio, it is better. He believed the situation now is somewhat better because it is dispersed over a large area, but this project will create a puddle and then it will breach at the lowest spot. Mr. Matthews said if all the water is going toward the stairwell, they did a bad job. The patio will be pitched toward the outside and forward, not toward the house. Madge B. wasn’t sure the board knew enough to come up with a plan. CEO McDonough disagreed, he thought he heard several good ideas, it just needs to be added to a plan. Maggie M. asked about reducing the size of the patio. CEO McDonough believed the owner had the right to replace the patio with one of same size in the same location. Mr. Matthews asked if gutters and two stone dry wells would solve the issue? Madge believed it would work. Steve F. said he didn’t know the answer. He believed it was an issue.

Roland L. said the proposal was better than what exists at this time. It is a safety issue at this time. He just wanted to be sure it was done correctly. Steve F. stated that Mr. Matthews said the pavers would tip on both sides. Mr. Matthews agreed. Roland L. asked if there would be a lip where the pavers come into contact with the retaining wall, is it a continuous plane? Mr. Matthews said it was continuous.

CEO McDonough noted that the board has the authority to ask for anything they want. Roland L. said the board was not to come up with a design plan, it is the applicant’s responsibility. Madge B. said the board’s job is to stop erosion from going into the lake. She noted there was a lot of plants already there. Steve F. said the applicant would have to create a plan to deal with the water from the two downspouts of the gutters. Mr. Matthews stated he would draw it on the plan now.

Steve F. asked if there were any additional questions? There were none.

Steve F. then reviewed §105-73.G ‘Standards applicable to conditional uses’ and made findings of fact.

Standards applicable to conditional uses. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed use meets all of the following criteria. The Board shall approve the application unless it makes written findings that one or more of these criteria have not been met.

1) The use will not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, birds or other wildlife habitat. Steve F. stated, it will not, the wall repair will protect aquatic life, along with the gutter system & catch basins to divert stormwater.

2) The use will conserve shore cover and visual, as well as actual, access to water bodies. Steve F. stated the wall repair and patio will not harm any of the existing vegetation.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 8-22-17 Page 9 of 14

3) The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Steve F. stated the Comprehensive Plan wants the lakes and water quality protected.

4) Traffic access to the site is safe. Steve F. stated, this is not applicable.

5) The site design is in conformance with all municipal flood hazard protection regulations. Steve F. stated this is not in a flood zone.

6) Adequate provision for the disposal of all wastewater and solid waste has been made. Steve F. stated that the waste material will be hauled off site and taken to Simpsons for disposal or recycling.

7) Adequate provision for the transportation, storage and disposal of any hazardous materials has been made. Steve F. stated that there is none generated by this activity.

8) A stormwater drainage system capable of handling fifty-year storm without adverse impact on adjacent properties has been designed. Steve F. stated the wall built as designed will help mitigate stormwater drainage. A gutter system will be placed on the home to mitigate stormwater runoff from the roof and minimize it on the patio area.

9) Adequate provisions to control soil erosion and sedimentation have been made. Steve F. stated best management practices will be used until the job is completed, including replanting of vegetation.

10) There is adequate water supply to meet the demands of the proposed use and for fire protection purposes. Steve F. this is N/A.

11) The provisions for buffer strips and on-site landscaping provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development, such as noise, glare, fumes, dust, odors and the like. Steve F. stated the wall will not harm the neighboring properties as proposed.

12) All performance standards in this chapter applicable to the proposed use will be met. Steve F. stated they shall with conditions.

The conditions of approval are:

1) Gutters shall be added to the side of the house facing the water, along with downspouts on each side of the house, going into a dry well.

2) The project, including the addition of gutters and dry wells for stormwater mitigation shall be completed by October 15, 2017.

3) Best Management Practices shall be used until the project is completed.

4) The existing wall and patio is to be removed and taken out of Shapleigh, and disposed of properly.

5) Return walkway on the left hand side of the house to the original condition when the project is finished.

6) A building permit must be obtained from the Code Enforcement Officer, prior to the construction of the new wall.

Steve F., looking at the sketch provided, stated that the catch basin would be a 3 foot hole, line it with fabric and fill it with stone. Mr. Matthews stated, “Yes.”

Madge M. moved for approval of the Condition Use Permit to replace the existing retaining wall with the above stated conditions. Maggie M. 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. By a vote of 4 – 0, the motion to approve was unanimous.

Nothing further was discussed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 8-22-17 Page 10 of 14

The Findings of Facts

1. The owner of Shapleigh Tax Map 27, Lot 23 (22 Point Road), is Nicole Sampson of 9 Shaker Hollow Road, Setauket, NY 11733.

2. The property itself is located in the Shoreland District and according to the assessor the property contains .22 acres.

3. The application description reads as follows: Removing an existing rotted retaining wall & patio & replacing it with a stone wall & patio. Same location.

4. Received was a sketch plan depicting the location of the deck to be replaced with cement patio, wall to be replaced and where erosion control measures will be placed; a sketch plan depicting the replacement wall being made of concrete block with crushed stone behind, filter fabric, and drain pipe, with an attached patio made of pavers. The wall will be 39 inches in height.

5. Received was an amended sketch plan, dated 8/22/17, which depicts the location of the replacement retaining wall and patio, along with gutters and a downspout going into a crushed stone dry well on both sides of the house (to mitigate stormwater). A sketch of the dry well basin is also on this revised plan, showing the basin to be 3 feet x 3 feet in size filled with crushed stone with fabric cover.

6. The board reviewed Zoning Ordinance §105-39, ‘Earth removal and filling other than mineral exploration and extraction’ and concurred that this project met all the criteria under Section D ‘Earthmoving in the Shoreland District’; noting the material being used behind the new wall was appropriate for the project, and gutters will be added to the house, with downspouts going into a dry well, for additional stormwater mitigation. In addition, materials from the existing wall and patio shall be removed off-site and taken to the proper facility.

7. The board reviewed Zoning Ordinance §105-73, Section G, ‘Standards applicable to conditional uses’ and concurred the application and information as presented met the performance standards in this chapter, with conditions.

8. A notice was mailed to all abutters within 500 feet of the property on August 9, 2017. Meetings were held on August 8, 2017 and August 22, 2017. A site inspection was done on August 22, 2017 by members.

9. The Planning Board unanimously agreed to approve the Conditional Use Permit to replace the existing retaining wall and patio per the plans provided, on property known as Tax Map 27, Lot 23, with conditions.

10. The conditions of approval are:

1) Gutters shall be added to the side of the house facing the water, along with downspouts on each side of the house, going into a dry well.

2) The project, including the addition of gutters and dry wells for stormwater mitigation shall be completed by October 15, 2017.

3) Best Management Practices shall be used until the project is completed.

4) The existing wall and patio is to be removed and taken out of Shapleigh, and disposed of properly.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 8-22-17 Page 11 of 14

5) Return walkway on the left hand side of the house to the original condition when project is finished.

6) A building permit must be obtained from the Code Enforcement Officer, prior to the construction of the new wall.

-------------------------------------

Best Possible Location – Replace Shed – Map 23, Lot 18 (25 Director’s Lane) – David & Donna Landry, Applicants

Mr. & Mrs. Landry were present for the review of their application.

Along with the application, provided was a picture of the existing shed, along with the dimensions of the existing shed (8’6” x 5’8”), and the proposed size of the new shed (9’ x 6’10”). In addition, a plot plan was provided, depicting the location of the existing house and deck, leachfield location, well, parking area, and shed location. The existing setback to the water from the shed is 70 feet.

The detailed description of the project is: Tear down an existing playhouse/shed built in 1960 & rebuild, enlarging footprint 30%. No plumbing/electricity in new structure. No trees will be cut. No soil disturbed. The existing site was excavated in a hillside in 1960 and the new shed will fit on the current site.

Steve F. asked the Landry’s to tell the board about what they were proposing. The applicants provided additional pictures for the board to look at, of the existing shed. Mr. Landry began by stating they were before the board to get permission to tear down an existing aging shed that used to be a playhouse years ago. Replacing it with a new structure and take advantage of the 30%.

Mr. Landry stated the shed is setback in the woods and on an excavated site on a fairly steep bank.

He said it was a playhouse about 60 years ago; currently, it is being used as a storage shed. He continued to explain the location of the shed at this time.

Mr. Landry stated the dimensions of the shed are in the packet, along with the requested expansion. He stated he drew a small sketch of what he wanted the shed to look like. He said he spoke with Mike Allen who prefabs them and it would measure 6’10” across the front by 9 feet to take advantage of the allowed footprint expansion. He said it would be a standard construction, 2 x 4 pressure treated floor with plywood, 2 x 6, 16 on center walls, with some type of dark pine siding because they want it to blend in, therefore, it would be a dark grey or dark green. The shed would have no plumbing or electricity. The erosion control concerns, it is 70 feet setback from the lake, no trees need to be cut, or brush, to get the old shed out or new shed in. He said they would take a sawzall to the old shed and cut it up and move it out by hand. The only soil disturbed is the area under the shed will be raked out and leveled for the new shed. The new shed will be set on cement blocks a single block high. There will be a rock infiltration trench 12 feet wide, 6 inches deep lined with fabric around the drip edge and on the lake side of shed. They will not need mechanized vehicles, it will be carried in and out.

Mr. Landry stated with respect to the location, the surveyors plot plan gives an idea of where the shed is currently located. The shed is located above and to the right of the existing house. It is 70 feet back from the lake. 15 feet to the side lot line and 21 feet from the rear of the property. The area was excavated in 1959 for the existing shed. The current site would hold the new proposed shed without any earth moving or disturbing any soils. The area in the back is four feet high, therefore, he believed the current location is best, since the only level ground in the area is where the current shed is. They have no desire to move it closer to the lake and they want to keep it out of site as well. It is currently shielded from view of the lake.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 8-22-17 Page 12 of 14

Steve F. asked if there were any questions. There were none.

Steve F. set the site inspection for September 12th prior to the planning board meeting at approximately 6:30 p.m. A Notice to abutters will be mailed as well. The applicants will be at the house. (Roland L. will go on his own due to working earlier in the day.)

Nothing further was discussed.

-------------------------------------

Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit – Open a School to be known as Trinity Christian Academy at Shapleigh 1st Baptist Church – Map 45, Lot 4 (600 Shapleigh Corner Road) – Connie Bosse, Representing; Trinity Christian Academy, Applicant

Mrs. Bosse was present for the review of the application, along with Mark Boisse.

In addition to the application, provided was a copy of a Construction Permit #12060, dated November 14, 2001, whereby First Baptist Church was approved by the State of Maine to construct or alter the existing building, noting all local ordinances, zoning laws, or other pertinent legal restrictions must be adhered to. A plot plan depicting the original church structure, function room, education wing, two parking areas, old barn and parsonage, leach field location and distances to side lots line, Shapleigh Corner Road and Pump Box Brook. A copy of the Subsurface Wastewater Disposal System Application for a replacement system, done by John Large, SE #7, dated 7/2/1985 for a Church with 50 seat capacity.

The description of the project stated: No additional construction needed. All existing buildings to be used (mostly new addition). Also, in an attached letter dated August 14, 2017, written by Connie Lee Bosse, Asst. Principal and Mark Boisse, Trustee Chairman of Shapleigh Baptist Church, is, ‘There are presently less than 15 children attending Trinity Christian Academy, along with about 6 teachers. The school year runs similar to that of the public school.

Steve F. asked the applicants to let the board know why they are here. Mr. Boisse began by stating he was the Trustee of the Church and he was unaware they needed to come to the board for a Conditional Use Permit. He said he wasn’t sure what questions to answer. He stated it was an existing building, the education wing was built for this, it was built with the existing septic system in mind with the added classrooms. Note: The church is currently approved for Sunday school classes only.

Madge B. asked if the school was new? She noted there were classes for adults and children but not an official year round school. Mr. Boisse stated, yes. He introduced Mrs. Bosse, and she stated she was the Assistant Head Master of the school and she was representing the school, where he was representing the church. Madge said the board sees this as an additional use to the existing Conditional Use Permit.

Mr. Boisse stated that he sent what he believed was the pertinent information but realized it is up to the board to let them know what they need. Madge B. said the school will take place in the education wing that has been in place for several years. She said there will be a site visit where more questions may arise but there may be an issue with the septic system. She said looking at the septic design it states that it will accommodate 50 seats for the church. Mr. Boisse stated that the church clearly has more than 50 seats and has for more than 200 years. He believed it was meant for 50 people, and he said it was clear there are more than 50 people that go to the church. He stated that the school consists of half that many.

Steve F. stated that his concern was that someone who knew more than him should say it can handle the existing and proposed use. Mr. Boisse said it has been adequate for 30 years and there have been more than 50 people in the church every Sunday. Both Madge B. and Steve wanted to know how this is figured since no one lives there, and how they figure it for a school whether it is Shapleigh Memorial School or this

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 8-22-17 Page 13 of 14

proposed school. Steve wanted to know how this number is derived and if the additional use will impact this. Mr. Boisse said he didn’t follow up on this. He said, “There are rooms in the new educational wing and they will get 8 to 10 kids in each room roughly, and there is about six rooms. So at the lowest amount there is roughly 60 kids and the permit to build was given with that septic system design, already in place. I made the assumption that it obviously must be ok.”

Maggie M. asked if this was adding additional children to the 60 kids? Mr. Boisse said no, he was giving the amount of kids that can be held in the education wing. He said clearly it isn’t the case. The septic system at the time was ok with those rough numbers being understood. Mrs. Bosse noted there was no crossover between school and church, time wise.

Steve F. said he felt the question needed to be answered, will this system handle what your current use is plus what you are doing with the school now. Madge B. asked if they thought about getting an answer to the question? Mr. Boisse said that he did, but he didn’t have time to get the answer. Madge said the board will want to know the answer because there appeared to be enough parking, and it won’t overlap with the church.

CEO McDonough asked if they were asking for a maximum amount of students or a minimum? Mrs. Bosse stated that she was not at this point. She stated that this year they were looking at 15 full time students, 4 full time teachers and 2 part time teachers for a total of 158 days during the year. Steve F. stated, “So we would set, as a board, what you would be approved for, so you want to keep that in mind, what your potential max would be. How many students. How many teachers.” Madge B. said, “How many days of the week, hours, etc.”

Roland L. wanted to know if there would be a food prep area? Would there be a cafeteria? Would someone be preparing a lunch for the students? Mrs. Bosse said it was no different from what the church does now, the students bring their own lunches the majority of the time. We have made no changes. Roland said, “There will be no need to add bathrooms.” Mrs. Bosse stated that they had changed nothing on the outside of the church, it is used strictly as it was designed years ago, for Christian education. Mr. Boisse stated that there were three bathrooms in the building already, male, female and family. Roland asked if they were handicap accessible? Mr. Boisse stated that they were.

CEO McDonough stated that the educational wing, he believed, was designed for and permitted for a Sunday school. He stated if the kitchen becomes a daily lunch facility, at a minimum, the septic system would need a grease trap. Mr. Boisse wanted to know if they needed a grease trap if kids bring their own lunch? CEO McDonough stated, “So you are not going to make any lunches in the kitchen?” Mrs. Bosse stated, “Not on a regular basis.” Mr. Boisse stated, “Kids generally bring their own lunches.” Steve F. said, “There are 15 kids and sometimes they get lunch made.” Mr. Boisse said, “Fair enough.” Steve stated that the board would be reviewing §105-73 Conditional Use Permit. Madge B. noted that a copy of the standards are given out with the application, so they should have a copy.

Madge B. stated the board wanted a professional to look at the septic design and tell the board they are meeting the code requirements. Steve F. agreed stating that the board needs to be certain it is adequate going forward or fix it. He said a soils engineer needs to address the boards concern.

Madge B. said the board will ask about waste disposal, if they bring their own lunch how will the trash be handled.

Mr. Boisse said they had a dilemma, and noted it was his fault, but they are one meeting late and the school season starts on September 11 and the next board meeting is September 12th. Steve F. noted there would also be a public hearing. Mr. Boisse asked how they handled it? He said if he gets an engineer and he says it is

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 8-22-17 Page 14 of 14

ok, then it comes to the board and after that it is a formality. Would they be ok to start the school on Monday, and then walk through the permit process on Tuesday? Madge B. said, “We are not in the position to tell you.” Steve F. stated, “I don’t think as a board we can authorize you to start activity against the code of the Town of Shapleigh.” Mrs. Bosse asked how they would know if they were against the code? Steve stated, “At this point you don’t have a conditional use permit for the school.” Madge agreed.

Steve F. asked if there were any questions. There were none.

Steve F. stated that there would be a public hearing at 7 p.m. and a site visit at 6:15 p.m. A notice to abutters will be mailed as well. Members will meet at the church.

Nothing more was discussed.

************************

Growth Permits

There are Growth Permits available.

************************

The Planning Board meeting ended at 9:10 p.m.

The next meeting will be held Tuesday, September 12, 2017 at 7:30 p.m. The Planning Board meets the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month unless it falls on a holiday or Election Day. Any scheduled public hearing takes place at 7:00 p.m. prior to the scheduled meeting. Also, should there be a cancellation due to a storm event, holiday or Election, the meeting will typically be held the following Wednesday, also at 7:30 p.m. Please contact the Land Use Secretary if there is a question in scheduling, 207-636-2844, x404.

Respectively submitted,

Barbara Felong,

Land Use Secretary planningboard@shapleigh.net