December 17, 2017  11:51 PM 
October 25, 2017
Other Notices
December 08, 2017
December 01, 2017
December 01, 2017
November 28, 2017
November 21, 2017
October 13, 2017

SHAPLEIGH PLANNING BOARD

MINUTES

Tuesday, October 10, 2017

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

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

Minutes are not verbatim, unless in quotes “”

The minutes from Tuesday, September 26, 2017 were accepted as read.

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

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

Conditional Use Permit – Replace Walls & Stairs – Map 32, Lot 30 (110 Dogwood Drive) – Mark Rautenberg, Terri Ball, Applicants

Mark Rautenberg and Terry Ball were present for the review of the application.

Already received and reviewed by members, was a property sketch which depicted the existing house, stairs and walls, dock, as well as the approximate leachfield, septic tank, and well location. A second sketch provided a larger view of the existing wall and stairs to be replaced, along with an erosion control and replanting plan. This plan consists of erosion control mulch, grass, lilies and ‘plantings’.

Also provided was the following information:

We propose:

• To hire a reputable contractor with experience in landscape/hardscape design and construction to remove and replace failing, collapsing RR tie walls and stairs

• To carefully remove and dispose of failing collapsing RR ties walls and stairs

• To replace with cement block walls, drained with fabric and crushed stone according to industry standards

• To secure walls 3 feet tall into the slope to stabilize walls and soil with fabric tied back into the slope according to industry standards

• To replace existing RR tie stairs with cement steps and water permeable pavers to stabilize the soil and prevent any runoff into the lake

Revegetation plan:

• To carefully remove, preserve and replant all existing plantings

• To replace and reseed any grass that is disturbed during the wall removal and replacement process

The detailed description of the project stated: (see attached) Replacement of deteriorating RR tie walls & stairs with cement block walls in exact same location, no other site changes planned.

Board members did a site inspection of the property on an individual basis.

Roger A. asked the applicants to let the board know what they planned to do for the record. Mr. Rautenberg began by stating that they feel they need to replace some existing failing walls that are three tiers, that are currently railroad ties. He said they are crumbling, leaning and they are afraid they are going to give way. He said they intend to replace the existing walls and existing stairs with no expansion. He wanted to replace the failing walls with cement blocks in the exact same location.

Page 1 of 11

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10/10/17 Page 2 of 11

Roger A. asked if there were any questions?

Roland L. asked, “From the water looking at the first wall I noticed way off to the right a real large boulder, is that going to be removed or will you just pick up from there?” Mr. Rautenberg stated, “We are replacing exactly what is there now, we have no intentions of disrupting the soil or moving the boulder. The vegetation in front of the wall we are intending to take out, replant, and then put back in again, as soon as we are able to replace it.”

Roland L. said, “Secondly, I was wondering if you would consider a narrower set of stairs at the bottom. I estimated it was a little over six feet wide which again lends itself to water. I know you are going to put pavers but the opportunity for water to go down, would you consider something a little narrower than that?” Mr. Rautenberg said they would, and noted when they bought their property they were cleaning their stairs constantly. He said he watched the water pattern after a rainstorm, starting at the top he had two rubber raisers intercepting the water on the access road. He said they also have a passive drain that goes off into the woods before it hits the house, and then a water bar that goes into the neighbors then down the stairs. He feels they have completely controlled the water and said they no longer have to clean the stairs of bark mulch. Only what falls from the trees needs to be cleared. He noted he was also on the board of the ASYCC.

Roland L. said he should have started by complementing them on their runoff control measures which he noticed in place. He was looking at the width of stairs and asked again if they needed to be that wide? He said it was not a request and he didn’t know if there was a width requirement with respect to stairs. Mr. Rautenberg said that they didn’t need to be that wide but they assumed it was easier to replace what was there because the excavation has already been done. Ms. Ball stated that if they were made narrower they would have to do something for erosion control. Mr. Rautenberg stated they would have to fill in the area with erosion control mulch. Ms. Ball stated that they used the stairs to transport kayaks, so it is easier to haul them up the wider stairs. Mr. Rautenberg said, “We really haven’t had any water running down the stairs since we intercepted at every step along the way. We never considered making them less wide, just replacing what was there.”

Roland L. said he noticed the grass was lush and thick and he assumed it was because of the irrigation system, and not because fertilizer was being used. Mr. Rautenberg stated that they irrigate from the lake.

Roger A. asked if there were any other questions? There were none.

Roger A. stated the wall was going to be made of pavers, or a block wall from Genest or something similar. Mr. Rautenberg agreed, similar to. He said the wall needs to also act as a retaining system, anything above two and one-half feet needs to be tied back into the soil with geogrid fabric and stone for drainage.

Roger A. said no trees are being removed. The applicants agreed. Mr. Rautenberg said again that they were replacing just the wall, exactly as is, where it is.

Roger A. reviewed §105-4.D(c)(5) ‘Removal, reconstruction or replacement’. Roger noted the applicants were keeping the structure in the same location, therefore, it is not making it more non-conforming. Roger stated everything was going to be kept the same as it is now. Grass will be replaced, along with the existing plantings behind the walls. These plants will be removed then re-established.

Roger A. asked about a time frame? Mr. Rautenberg stated they considered having one of the tiers done this fall but he wasn’t sure it will happen. He said they hoped to have it done by late spring, early summer.

Roger A. asked again if there were any question or concerns? There were none.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10/10/17 Page 3 of 11

Roger A. reviewed Shapleigh Zoning Ordinance 105-73.G “Standards applicable to conditional uses” and made findings of fact.

G. 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. Roger A. stated it will not, it will help protect the lake from runoff and by removing the railroad ties.

2) The use will conserve shore cover and visual, as well as actual, access to water bodies. Roger A. stated that it will stabilize the area.

3) The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Roger A. stated it is, the Comprehensive Plan encourages the preservation of lake water quality and keeping the shorefront from eroding.

4) Traffic access to the site is safe. Roger A. stated this is N/A for this application.

5) The site design is in conformance with all municipal flood hazard protection regulations. Roger A. stated it is, this location is not in a flood zone. He also noted the new retaining walls will prevent erosion.

6) Adequate provision for the disposal of all wastewater and solid waste has been made. Roger A. stated that the railroad ties shall be taken to J.A. Simpson in Sanford for disposal.

7) Adequate provision for the transportation, storage and disposal of any hazardous materials has been made. Roger A. stated again the railroad ties shall be taken to J.A. Simpson in Sanford.

8) A stormwater drainage system capable of handling fifty-year storm without adverse impact on adjacent properties has been designed. Roger A. stated the existing walls have been in place for many years and the existing stormwater mitigation is keeping stormwater from washing down the stairs and into the water. The existing measures will remain and the new walls will be placed in the same location as the existing.

9) Adequate provisions to control soil erosion and sedimentation have been made. . Roger A. stated a person licensed by the MDEP in erosion control measures shall be present during the removal and construction of the walls. BMP shall be used until the project is completed, including revegetation of the area.

10) There is adequate water supply to meet the demands of the proposed use for fire protection purposes. Roger A. stated this is N/A for this project and the lake is adjacent to the project.

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. Roger A. stated there is a buffer strip around the property, no changes are being made to it.

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

The conditions of approval are:

  1. The project, including the removal of the existing walls, and revegetation plan shall be completed by September 1, 2018. If this date cannot be accomplished the applicant must contact the Code Enforcement Office.
  2. Best Management Practices shall be kept in place until the project is completed. There must be a person certified by the DEP in erosion control practices on site during the project.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10/10/17 Page 4 of 11

  1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction through the Code Enforcement Office.

Maggie M. made the motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit to replace the existing retaining walls per the plans provided, on Map 32, Lot 30, with the above stated conditions. Steve F. 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. By a vote of 5 – 0, the motion passed unanimously.

Nothing further was discussed.

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

The Findings of Facts

1. The owners of Shapleigh Tax Map 32, Lot 30 (110 Dogwood Drive), are Mark Rautenberg & Terri Ball, of 110 Dogwood Drive, Shapleigh, Maine 04076.

2. The property is located in the Shoreland District and according to the assessor, the property contains .33 acres.

3. The applicant is before the board for a Conditional Use Permit to replace the existing railroad tie walls and stairs with cement blocks and pavers, same size, same location.

4. Received was a property sketch which depicted the existing house, stairs and walls, dock, as well as the approximate leachfield, septic tank, and well location. A second sketch provided a larger view of the existing wall and stairs to be replaced, along with an erosion control and replanting plan. This plan consists of erosion control mulch, grass, lilies and ‘plantings’.

5. The detailed description of the project stated: (see attached) Replacement of deteriorating RR tie walls & stairs with cement block walls in exact same location, no other site changes planned.

6. The board reviewed §105-4.D(c)(5) ‘Removal, reconstruction or replacement’ and the board concurred the application met all the standards imposed.

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.

8. A notice was mailed to all abutters within 500 feet of the property on September 27, 2017. Meetings were held on September 26, 2017 and October 10, 2017. A site inspection was done by members on an individual basis.

9. The Planning Board unanimously agreed to approve the Conditional Use Permit to replace the existing railroad tie walls and stairs with cement blocks and pavers, same size, same location with conditions.

10. The conditions of approval are:

  1. The project, including the removal of the existing walls, and revegetation plan shall be completed by September 1, 2018. If this date cannot be accomplished the applicant must contact the Code Enforcement Office.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10/10/17 Page 5 of 11

  1. Best Management Practices shall be kept in place until the project is completed. There must be a person certified by the DEP in erosion control practices on site during the project.
  2. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction through the Code Enforcement Office.

Motion:

After careful consideration and a review of all material presented to the Board, including the review of the Zoning Ordinance §105-4.D(c)(5) ‘Removal, reconstruction or replacement’, and §105-73, Section G, ‘Standards applicable to conditional uses’ a motion was made on Tuesday, October 10, 2017, to approve the Conditional Use Permit to replace the existing railroad tie walls and stairs with cement blocks and pavers, same size, same location, to be located on Map 32, Lot 30, per the plans provided and with three conditions.

Vote:

By a unanimous vote of 5 – 0, the motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit to replace the existing railroad tie walls and stairs with cement blocks and pavers, same size, same location, to be located on Map 32, Lot 30, per the plans provided and with three conditions, was accepted.

Decision:

The Conditional Use Permit to replace the existing railroad tie walls and stairs with cement blocks and pavers, same size, same location, to be located on Map 32, Lot 30, per the plans provided and with three conditions was approved.

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

Conditional Use Permit – Marina – Map 19, Lot 8 (17 Emery Mills Road) – Marc Boisse, Applicant; Wayne Berry, Property Owner

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

Along with the application, presented to board members was a sketch plan of the existing lot depicting an existing structure to be used in part as an office and show room, a proposed dock display area, a proposed 40’ x 140’ gravel parking area, a lighted path covered in bark mulch which led to a proposed boat docking area having multiple slips. The sketch also provided site distance calculations of 660 feet in one direction and 560 feet in the other while exiting the property. Pictures of the property were provided depicting the existing structures, those being a house and attached barn, and an aerial view of the property. A document was provided from Wayne Berry (property owner) dated 10/4/17, which gave Mr. Boisse full permission to make an application for a marina on his property.

The detailed description of the project is as follows: Marina (see attached) The attachment read in part:

The subject property is a 2.43 acre lot on Lower Mousam Lake with approximately 720 feet of waterfront and 278 feet of road frontage on Route 109. Our application is for 20 seasonal boat slips, dock sales and a small parking lot to serve our customers. We hope to offer a few boat rentals along with the option of renting kayaks and canoes on daily or weekly basis.

Roger A. asked Mr. Boisse to tell the board was his intentions were.

Mr. Boisse stated the property is located at 17 Emery Mills Road, it is an old farmhouse at the foot of the lake. He stated that he wanted to purchase it but first would like to know if they could put in boat slips

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10/10/17 Page 6 of 11

and move the dock business from the property he currently owns to this location. He said he wanted to use this property for his business.

Roger A. asked if the house on site will still be used as a house, along with having the business on the property? Mr. Boisse stated he didn’t know what they would be doing with the house. He said they would have an office in the annex of the house and perhaps put in a bathroom for the guys that work there, and add a showroom in the garage. He stated they would be adding boat slips and create a parking lot. He noted they would not be able to do it all at once.

Roger A. stated the reason he asked was because a residential unit requires two acres and a business requires two acres. Mr. Boisse asked if the whole property is business, did it still follow under that rule? Roger said, yes, 2 acres. Mr. Boisse said again ‘if the whole property is a business’. Roger stated that if it is the business, the residential use will go away if you use it as a business. He stated that he could not have both uses. Roger said you can only have one ‘use’ per 2 acre lot. Mr. Boisse asked if he were talking about them using it or other people. Roger stated that it did not matter, if the property is used as a residence for anyone, then it cannot be used as a business or visa versa. He noted he could not rent the house and have a businesses, it would be one or the other.

Mr. Boisse didn’t understand why the rule existed, he wanted an explanation. Roger A. explained that years ago people were concerned with having a business in a residential area, so the Planning Board increased the lot size requirement and the citizens voted it in at Town Meeting. Mr. Boisse noted that Weaver Marine had a large boathouse but the house on the property was not being rented and he thought it was not a good idea. Roger stated that Mr. Weaver had over two acres, so if he wanted to he could rent the house, it was up to him.

He said it was not up to the board to tell him he had to use it, it was his prerogative; he had enough land to be able to use it. Mr. Boisse asked if the board ever made exceptions? Roger stated the board could not, the ordinance had to be followed, there is no gray area with the ordinance requirements.

Mr. Boisse asked if there were other businesses running two businesses from their property? Roger A. stated there were businesses that had multiple businesses before the ordinance was enacted. Madge B. added that the board was speaking about proposing an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance changing the lot size requirement. She wasn’t sure exactly what it would be but it will reduce the 4 acre requirement. Roger agreed, but said again, at this moment in time this lot would only be able to have a business or a residence, not both.

Roger A. stated that if he wants to proceed, he will have to decide if he wants a business on this location or a residence, the lot cannot hold both at this time. Mr. Boisse stated that his primary goal was selling the docks, having the boat slips and a showroom. He said if the ordinance changes he would take a look at having a residence and wanted to know if he would have to come back before the board. Both Roger and Madge B. stated he would have to come back before the board for a change in use. It would be an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit.

Mr. Boisse stated with that being said, they wanted to right now look at boat slips, parking lot, docks for sale, a showroom, office and adding a bathroom to the structure for the employees.

Maggie M., looking at one of the pictures, believed there would have to be a lot of trees removed in order to build the parking area. Mr. Boisse wasn’t sure what the size of the parking area would need to be. He didn’t know if it was based on the boat slips, was there a square foot amount for vehicles, etc. Roger A. stated 200 square feet per vehicle was required but he felt with trailers this figure would double. Mr. Boisse stated he

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10/10/17 Page 7 of 11

was not having a boat launch, he thought people would come to get into their boats and go, for the summer. He didn’t plan on having them launch from this location, so he wasn’t sure if there would be boat trailers on

site. He didn’t anticipate trailers being left. Roger said for 20 slips there needed to be a spot for 20 vehicles, which would be 4000 sq. ft.

Mr. Boisse stated that he may have to increase the size of the parking that he provided on the sketch. He stated that the parking area would be in the same area, but perhaps larger in size. He said it was 140 from the water, he was trying to keep it as far from the water as possible.

Maggie, M., looking at the sketch, wanted to know if the path was in existence at this time? Mr. Boisse stated that it was but it wasn’t as clear as the picture depicted. Madge B. said it was easy to follow, noting she walked it prior to the meeting this evening.

Roger A. stated that the size of the parking area would also have to include the office space, as well as the slips. Mr. Boisse stated there was an area in front of the barn. Roger said the office space is going to be X number of square feet and then additional parking needs to be added for that, as well as for the number of employees. Mr. Boisse asked what was considered office space? Roger said what area will be used, is it 20’ x 40’ which is 800 sq. ft.? He said if it is 800 sq. ft., you divide this number by 150, which says how many spots are needed for the office area. He said this would be an additional six spots, plus the 20 for the boat slips and then additional for the personnel. Roger said they could be looking at needing 30 spots, each being 200 sq. ft. in size. Mr. Boisse said this is determined this way, even if it is unlikely everyone will be there at one time. Roger stated that the board had to, this is the ordinance requirement. The board cannot determine how many people will be there at one time, so it has to be looked at, at full capacity. Mr. Boisse asked again if the board needed to know how big the office would be? Roger stated, “The office and the showroom.”

Mr. Boisse said he was before the board to see if what they wanted to do was feasible, if it could be done. He said if the board tells him it will not be allowed, then he will have to rethink what he wants to do. Roger A. stated that if this is going to be a business ‘or’ a residential unit, it will be allowed with conditions. If Mr. Boisse wants both at this time, it will not be allowed. Mr. Boisse stated at this time he was looking at the boat slips and the business. Roger noted that if the ordinance gets changed, then Mr. Boisse can come back before the board to amend the CUP to add the residence.

Roger A. believed the boat slips were overseen by the Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, they determine if they will be a navigational hazard. Mr. Boisse stated that if the board looks at the picture it is designed so it is not far out into the lake. Roger said as long as the dock is removed, there likely will not be an issue. Mr. Boisse stated that he wasn’t sure he had it in writing but was told as long as they remove them at the end of the season, there would not be an issue. He spoke with the MDEP. Madge asked if he also had to contact Inland Fisheries, because he spoke with MDEP? Roger thought he should also contact Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to make certain they had no issue, as they oversaw the waterways for the State of Maine. Mr. Boisse asked if Roger had a telephone number and he did not but told Mr. Boisse to go to the States website and you will find the contact information there.

Madge B. stated trees were being removed, but noted they were more than 100 feet from the water. She said the parking area is more than 100 feet back. Roger A. felt the removal of trees were incidental to construction. CEO McDonough stated that there was another set of regulations for distances between 100 feet from the water and the 250 foot mark. Madge believed it was up to 40% could be removed. CEO McDonough stated 40% applied to the entire lot or a 10,000 square foot opening. He didn’t feel it was an issue with the plan that was submitted.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10/10/17 Page 8 of 11

CEO McDonough wanted to address several things. CEO McDonough wanted everyone aware that any changes in the shoreland zone has to be approved by the MDEP prior to the change going into effect. He said

even if the board amends the rules governing two uses on a two acre lot, it may or may not apply to this application because anything changed must be approved by the State DEP office.

CEO McDonough stated that it was mentioned this evening by Mr. Boisse that he wanted to move his business. He said everything allowed in the Shoreland Zone has to be a water dependent use. Mr. Boisse stated it was going to be docks and boat slips. CEO McDonough agreed this applied but Mr. Boisse stated he wanted to move his business and at this time that is ‘The Whole Nine Yards’ which is also a landscaping business. Mr. Boisse stated that the part he was speaking about was the docks. CEO McDonough stated that that this would be fine but there could not be landscaping equipment and advertising for The Whole Nine Yards landscaping business at this location, it can only be the boat docks and slips. Mr. Boisse stated, “OK.”

Roger A. stated at this time it was up to Mr. Boisse as to what he wanted to have. Mr. Boisse stated that he wanted boat slips, and docks. Roger said the board would need specifics, such as the number of docks that will be on site. The area they will be stored in. Mr. Boisse stated this would fluctuate based on when a shipment came in and what was sold. Roger stated, “Put on the plan the estimated maximum number and where it will be stored. The size of the office, the size of the parking area / number of spaces. The number of boat slips in total.” CEO McDonough noted that they would be limited to the number of boat slips requested. Roger agreed and to be mindful because the number asked for will be all there is allowed, without an amendment. Roger said the board will ask for the hours of operation, and noted to keep this number as broad as possible, so they do not have to come back to change the hours. Also, will the entrance be gated? Roger said if there was any other outside storage it needs to be noted and what it is.

Madge B. said the section of the ordinance that may be helpful is §105-43 which speaks about off-street parking. Barbara F. noted that the entire ordinance can be found on line. Maggie M. thought boat rental was mentioned, kayaks, when Mr. Boisse applied he shouldn’t say they might do that, instead say they ‘will’ do it, even if it is in the future. An area where they will be stored should be on the plan as well.

Roger A. stated there will be a walkway from the slips to the parking area, he wanted to know if there would be lighting. Madge B. stated that it says there would be on the plan. Roland L. wanted to know if the parking lot would be lit after hours. CEO McDonough stated that part of the Planning Boards job is to ensure that lighting does not glare onto the neighboring property, onto the lake or onto Route 109. There should not be spotlights glaring. Mr. Boisse thought he had written low voltage light but he just wrote path lighting. Maggie said as long as it is aimed down at the path it should not bother anybody. CEO McDonough said Mr. Boisse should make note of all the lighting he will be using and put it on the plan.

Roland L. asked if there would be electricity down to the boat slips? Roland said that was another thing that should be placed on the plan.

Roger A. stated that the board needed to show pretty close to exactly what was going to be done on site, otherwise if any change is made, it will require an amendment to the CUP. Roger said he needed to be as specific as possible.

Roger A. asked if there would be gas on site for sale? Mr. Boisse stated that he had no intention of selling gas, it was available across the river. Roland L. asked if there would be a portable toilet on site? Mr. Boisse stated that he considered it as it made sense, he has seen it in other locations and thought it would be well received. He wanted to know if the board needed to know that too? Roland said that one of the requirements in the ordinance is asking about whether there is any accommodations for handling any waste,

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10/10/17 Page 9 of 11

so he should address it. Roger agreed and this question will have to be answered. And he again noted the hours of operation will need to be addressed. Roger said to put down the longest perceived hours.

Roger A. asked if there were any additional questions? There were none. Roger said the board will table the application until he is ready to come back before the board. Mr. Boisse asked if everyone within 500 feet would be notified, even in Acton? Roger said yes, and the board would take care of this. Barbara F. asked if

a notice to abutters would be masked now and a public hearing held at the next meeting? Roger said they would wait until they had more information.

Nothing further was discussed.

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

Other:

Barbara F. gave members a copy of the ordinance changes they had discussed in April of this year. They were as follows:

4/11/17

Proposed Amendment to §105-4.D(7)(b)[1][a]

Trees removed in order to relocate a structure must be replanted with at least one native tree, six feet in height, measured from the base of the trunk to the top of the tree, for every tree removed. If more than five trees are planted, no one species of tree shall make up more than 50% of the number of trees planted. Replaced trees must be planted no further from the water or wetland than the trees that were removed. Trees shall be planted greater than five feet from side lot lines, and shall create a ‘well distributed’ stand of trees.

4/25/17

Proposed Addition to §105-17

LAND USES

RURAL RP SD GP FD SP

Agricultural, commercial CU CU YES YES CU

gardening4

Seasonal sale of produce and

plants raised:

Off Premises4 NO CU CU CU CU

On the Premises4 NO CU YES CU CU

4Marijuana is neither considered an agricultural crop nor commercial gardening. Marijuana is not considered a seasonal produce or plant. Any ‘for profit’ conduct pursuant to the Maine Medical Use of Marijuana Act, 22-M.R.S.A. c.558-C requires a Conditional Use Permit. All retail conduct is prohibited.

Barbara F. just wanted the board to look them over to decide if they wanted to move forward with the changes. She didn’t think there would be an issue with §105-4.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10/10/17 Page 10 of 11

Madge B. reviewed the change to §105-17 and thought it seemed somewhat confusing. CEO McDonough stated the purpose was to answer the question as to what marijuana falls under in the ordinance.

Roland L. said that he had listened to a discussion at a Selectmen’s meeting, about who had jurisdiction in the State over Marijuana, at what stage. He said from seed to plant it would fall under The Dept. of Agriculture and beyond that it would fall under the Dept. of Finance. He didn’t know if it contradicted the statement which states it is not considered an agricultural crop. He believed the Dept. of Agriculture was going to oversee it. CEO McDonough did not believe that was relevant for the Ordinance.

Maggie M. thought the change to the Ordinance is to prevent something before the State rules on it. Madge B. said the State rules can throw everything off, if they pre-empt everything. Roger A. said he heard the Towns would have the final say. Madge said, “So what we have here is we added a footnote to make clear that they don’t apply to gardening.”

Madge B. said what we need to address is the growing of marijuana for retail. Maggie M. said once we get into commercial we can be stricter than the State. Roger A. agreed and said you could get a cultivation license from the State but we are trying to get it that in Shapleigh you need a Conditional Use Permit. This way it can be regulated, areas such as water, security, odor, etc. Madge said that it would be allowed in most places because the town doesn’t have commercial zoning. She felt there would have to be performance standards for the specific use if you wanted to regulate where. Roger said the odors have to be addressed and the State is asking for 750 feet from churches and schools and some towns have enacted 1000 feet. Roger said under general standards odors are addressed. Madge didn’t see how we could measure odor, a setback may be the way to address it. CEO McDonough stated that if they come to the Planning Board you can ask how they are going to control the order, and if there is no plan, there is a problem. Barbara F. noted there are facilities now that accomplish this, indoor facilities can do this. Outdoor growing may be an issue, and perhaps that needs to be addressed, no outdoor growing. Madge thought it would be easier to enforce as well, if grown indoors.

CEO McDonough noted that currently the town has banned retail marijuana establishments and retail marijuana social clubs. Retail marijuana establishments means: ‘retail marijuana’ stores, cultivation facilities, products manufacturing facilities, testing facilities, and social clubs. He thinks any grower falls under a retail marijuana establishment. Madge B. said, “Then we don’t have to do anything, so let’s not.”

Madge B. stated that she also wanted to discuss changing the lot coverage rule. CEO McDonough stated that was fine but reminded her that any change in the shoreland zone had to go through the DEP. He said most towns have an impervious surface rule, which we do not, and the reason we do not is because our lot coverage rule is so low that the DEP says we don’t have to have it because we have minimal lot coverage. CEO McDonough said the board could do other things to make it work, or just say in the General Purpose District.

Madge B. stated that she was also interested in seeing a business and a home on less than four acres. Steve F. agreed, he didn’t think it made any sense. CEO McDonough asked if she wanted to address two uses on one lot? He asked what she wanted to do about it. Madge said she was interested in proposing a change to the ordinance. She wanted to reduce if you have a business and home that it be less than four acres, perhaps three? Steve F. agreed, stating ‘My thought is whoever it is coming before us, whether there is 175 of road frontage and 2 acres or whether there is 300 feet of road frontage and six acres, it doesn’t change what we look at for a Conditional Use permit. We are looking at it, it’s a Conditional Use, it’s in the name.” Madge said, “Correct.” Steve stated, “We look at that to protect the neighbors, traffic, glare, smells, sounds, and if we find as a board that that doesn’t fit in that spot, whatever the lot size is, shouldn’t restrict that applicant. If

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10/10/17 Page 11 of 11

we have a knitting shop on a 50 x 100 lot and they want an application for six people to come knit on Saturday morning, it works. If you want to have a disco club down on the water, that doesn’t fit. To look at the entire town and say our ordinances say you have to have double the road frontage and double the lot size to do something on your lot, makes no sense to me.”

Maggie M. agreed, stating, “You could have three lots and the one in the middle wants a business. The houses on the outer two lots could be placed away from the one in the middle, so the middle lot would not disturb the other two. Or you could have just the opposite where one person has 8 acres but the business is right on the lot line, so it will disturb the neighbor.” Steve F. thought it was the board’s job to look at it. Roger A. stated each had to be looked at individually.

CEO McDonough noted that if something is not restricted in the ordinance than it is allowed. It doesn’t matter if neighbors complain, if it is an allowed use, it is allowed. Steve F. believed there are gray areas in the book. CEO McDonough agreed but noted he has been at board meetings for 18 years and has never seen board members using that authority. Steve believed it was part of the process to say this is small town Shapleigh, and ask will it fit in a particular location. Maggie M. added, regardless of the size of the land. Roger A. stated that today it is in the Ordinance and that is what we have to go by.

Board members agreed to review §105-19.A to address two uses on a single lot.

Board members also agreed that increasing the size of lot coverage in the General Purpose District to 20%, under 105-18 was something that should be considered for Town Meeting in March 2018. Both will be discussed in November. Barbara F. asked members to look at the 105-19 and see how they would like to address it.

Nothing further was discussed.

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

Growth Permits - There are growth permits available.

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

The Planning Board meeting ended at 8:55 p.m.

The next meeting will be held Tuesday, October 24, 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