February 25, 2018  6:37 PM 
December 29, 2017
Other Notices
February 09, 2018
January 10, 2018
January 10, 2018
January 05, 2018
December 20, 2017
December 08, 2017

SHAPLEIGH PLANNING BOARD

MINUTES

Wednesday December 13, 2017

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

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

Minutes are not verbatim, unless in quotes “”

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

Public Hearing began at 6:20 p.m.

• Proposed Amendments to §105-4.D(7)(b)(1)(a); §105-17; §105-18 & §105-19; §105-42

§105-40.2; 105-61.6 & New Definitions for Two-family Dwelling Unit & Dwelling Unit

Roger A. opened the meeting by stating the public hearing was for the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance. Madge B. stated that she sent the proposed changes to Southern Maine Regional Planning because they were the original authors of the Zoning Ordinance and this was their area of expertise.

The following are the proposed changes:

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.

Roger A. stated this change is proposed to not only give the trees room to grow but to keep the trees from intruding on the neighbor’s property.

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. Conduct pursuant to the Maine Medical Use of Marijuana Act, 22-M.R.S.A. c.558-C requires a Conditional Use Permit.

Page 1 of 15

Shapleigh Planning Board – Wednesday 12/13/17 Page 2 of 15

Roger A. stated this change was for additional clarification with respect to the existing Marijuana Ordinance enacted in March 2017 (Chapter 48 Marijuana) and the Maine Medical Use Marijuana Act.

§105-18. Dimensional Requirements

Commercial and Industrial Dimensional Requirements (A)

Resource General Stream

Protection Shoreland Purpose Floodplain Protection

Land Uses District District District District District

Maximum lot coverage

by structure N/A 10% 20% 2 10%

Residential Dimensional Requirements (A)

Resource General Stream

Protection Shoreland Purpose Floodplain Protection

Land Uses District District District District District

Maximum lot coverage

by structure N/A 10% 20% 2 10%

Roger A. and Madge B. stated this change was due to comments made from citizens during the questionnaire mailed out for the Comprehensive Plan, as well as local business owners. The change in lot coverage will only be in the General Purpose District.

19: Notes

A. Each lot on which is located a principal structure or use, unless in compliance with Sections 105-40.2 or 105.42 of this Ordinance, shall meet all the dimensional standards set forth in section 105-18. Dimensional requirements for two and multifamily dwellings are set forth in 105-42 of this chapter. Required yard space shall serve only one lot. No part of the yard or other open space required on any lot for any building shall be included as part of the yard or open space similarly required for another building or lot. If more than one When two principal governmental, institutional, commercial or industrial structures or uses, or combination thereof, is are constructed or established on a single parcel, all dimensional requirements for shall be met for each additional one principal structure or use shall apply. Dimensional requirements for a residence and a non-residential use on one conforming lot are set forth in 105-40.2

105-42:

A. Two-family dwelling units. Lots for two-family units shall meet all the dimensional requirements for a single-family dwelling unit except that the lot area and the shoreland frontage shall be equal to that required for an equivalent number of single-family dwelling units and the road frontage shall exceed by 50% the requirement of a single-family unit.

Shapleigh Planning Board – Wednesday 12/13/17 Page 3 of 15

A. Two-family dwelling unit: A lot with one two-family unit shall meet all the dimensional requirements of a lot with a single-family dwelling unit, providing the lot and structure dimensions conform to ordinance standards in effect at the time the two-family dwelling unit is proposed.

New definitions:

Two-family dwelling: Any building that contains two dwelling units used, intended, or designed to be built or occupied for living purposes.

Dwelling Unit. A single unit providing complete independent living facilities for two or more persons, including two permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. The term shall include manufactured housing units but shall not include trailers or recreational vehicles.

Dwelling Units – A room or group of rooms designed and equipped exclusively for the use as living quarters for only one family, including provisions for living, sleeping, cooking and eating. The term shall include manufactured housing units but shall not include trailers or recreational vehicles.

105-40.2 One non-residential use on a single-family residential lot

A. One use, other than a Home Occupation or a Child day care, may be located on a single-family residential lot that conforms to all ordinance dimensional standards in effect at the time the owner applies for the use, providing a CU or CEO permit if required by 105-17 is secured for the use, and providing there is only one single-family residence on the lot.

Members discussed whether or not the ordinance change reducing the required lot size for a two-family dwelling unit or a residence and non-residential use should be for the General Purpose District only or could include the Shoreland District. Members agreed that if a change was made in the Shoreland District it would require MDEP approval prior to proposing it at Town Meeting. In addition, it was agreed there were very few lots in the Shoreland District that would meet the dimensional requirements of a lot, therefore, the changes presented in 19 Notes and in §105-42 will pertain only to lots in the General Purpose District at this time.

Roger A. also noted that he was not personally in favor of reducing the lot size requirement for a two-family dwelling unit or allowing a dwelling unit and a business on a smaller lot, citing Shapleigh could begin to lose its rural character, allowing developers from out of town the ability to bring in multiple family housing units.

Zoning amendment to Article 105-61.6

105.61.6 Retaining walls: Any portion of a retaining wall in excess of 48 inches in height shall be designed by a licensed engineer or the owner shall secure a written confirmation by a licensed engineer that the proposed wall will be structurally sound if built as designed.

Roger A. stated this was being added to the Zoning Ordinance to mirror the requirement in the building code.

Later in the meeting, CEO McDonough thought the board might look at what is written in the building code regarding walls prior to their next public hearing. They may want to incorporate it into the ordinance as written in the BC. 2015 IRC R404.4 reads as follows:

Retaining walls, freestanding walls not supported at the top, with more than 48ins of unbalanced backfill must be designed by an engineer. Retaining walls resisting additional lateral loads and with more than 24ins of unbalanced backfill must also be designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice.

CEO McDonough noted that if this is put into the ordinance it would have to be followed as written.

Shapleigh Planning Board – Wednesday 12/13/17 Page 4 of 15

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

The public hearing closed at 6:42 p.m.

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

The minutes from Tuesday, November 28, 2017 were accepted as read.

The planning board meeting started at 6:45 p.m.

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

Amendment to a Best Practical Location – Replace Retaining Wall, Same Size – Same Location – Map 26, Lot 40 (7 Buccaneer’s Way) – Brad Sweet, Applicant

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

At the meeting on November 14, 2017, Mr. Sweet provided members with a plan depicting the property showing the retaining wall to be replaced, the trees to be removed and where new trees will be placed on the property; pictures of the existing railroad tie retaining wall and trees to be removed; a plan for the new wall to be built which depicted the concrete block units, filter fabric and stone to be used behind the new wall, geogrid reinforcement, the base material and the upper and lower finished grade.

Also provided, was a project description which read as follows:

Tax Map 26, Lot 40

Replace existing retaining wall and replace in same location and dimensions with updated building materials.

Existing wall is 24’ across the front with an average height of less than 4’ across front and less than 2’ on the sides.

Wall is entirely set on property; no area of wall or disturbance will impact abutters.

Construction design and materials attached on separate paperwork.

4 trees to be removed marked in yellow highlight on plot plan.

2 – 6’ Maple trees or similar to be planted as near to new retaining wall as feasible (green highlight)

2 – 6’ Maple trees or similar to be planted along inside of West boundary line.

The detailed description on the application is as follows: Replace existing retaining wall, remove 3 trees. Wall will be same size and location.

Roger A. opened the meeting by asking Mr. Sweet to let the board know what new information he had for the board.

Mr. Sweet stated that the board had asked him to get information from Genest Concrete, so he spoke with them and they gave him information about when geo-synthetic reinforcement needed to be used. The information addressed 1 foot to 18 foot walls, his being in the 5 foot range. Mr. Sweet stated he would be using either Diamond Pro or Highland, both being rear overlapping blocks.

The board reviewed the information and Roger A. stated that according to the information it appeared no tie-backs would be required. Mr. Sweet agreed, as long as there are no large slopes behind it and the type of soil also is a factor he believed. Roger agreed and said it was very sandy in this area so it would drain well.

Shapleigh Planning Board – Wednesday 12/13/17 Page 5 of 15

Mr. Sweet stated that the board had also asked for the amount of soil to be moved during the project. He said based on the requirement listed on the information sheet from Genest for soil to be removed and replaced behind the wall, that being 4 feet, and the length of the wall being 24 feet and the height being 5 feet, this comes to 48.5 cubic feet. He stated this translated into 17.8 yards of fill being removed and then added back behind the wall.

Roger A. asked if there would be plantings on top of the wall? What would stabilize the area once the wall was put up? Mr. Sweet stated not associated with the wall (Best Possible Location approval June 2017 for a new structure) there would be blueberry bushes, and several new trees would be added. He said that he would not be putting in a lawn as he did not want to mow. Roger asked what would help stabilize behind the new wall. Mr. Sweet said there will be erosion control mulch and plantings, again he said, no grass.

Steve F. asked if the board did not need a plan for the new wall, just information from Genest? Roger A. stated that the board asked if what he proposed to do would support the earth and if the wall would support the area and the information from Genest stated that it would. Roger said the plan stated that two layers of course fill and fabric were required but he wasn’t sure if CEO McDonough would be able to see this if it isn’t done all the way to the top of the wall. Steve said that the board has seen these walls before and given the area is sandy, he had no problem with using the data sheet, as long as it is going to be a precedent moving forward and the board isn’t going to require an engineered plan. Roger said that at this time any wall requiring engineering comes from the building code not the ordinance. Steve asked CEO McDonough if he was ok with the information provided? CEO McDonough stated in this case, because he knew the location, this was fine but he was concerned about future applications. He wanted to be sure if someone came before the board, for example with a 10 foot wall, that more than this basic information would be required. He believed the board had the authority now to ask for an engineered plan if they felt the project was big enough to need one. Steve said in this case, he wanted to be sure this is what the board would be looking for going forward and not a full engineered plan. Madge B. also said the board needed to look at what the proposed change should say. CEO McDonough asked if she was talking about giving the Planning Board the authority? Madge said, “Yes.” CEO McDonough said if this was a 10 foot wall he would not say the information provided was ok. Mr. Sweet agreed stating if it was a 10 foot wall he would want it engineered. CEO McDonough said that they were just talking about future applications.

Steve F. asked if the board could put a policy in place that was less restrictive than the building code? CEO McDonough said, “No.” Madge B. said, “Then we have to stick with what we’ve got.” CEO McDonough stated that the board could say ‘designed in accordance with accepted engineering practice’, this is taken from the building code. CEO McDonough said this building code (2015) is going into use next month, today it just says a four foot wall has to be engineered. Madge said then the board should be putting this into the ordinance but she wasn’t sure exactly what it meant, if Mr. Sweet would or would not need an engineered plan. CEO McDonough said it did but it was not in the ordinance, so the board did not have to enforce it. If it were in the ordinance they would. Steve said at this time the board has some flexibility. Roger said, “Right.” Madge wasn’t sure the board had any flexibility. Barbara F. said they did because the applicant goes to the CEO for a permit and he decides what is required for the wall. CEO McDonough said for this wall he would accept the information provided by Mr. Sweet. Madge said the ordinance needed to be changed for the wall.

Madge B. asked if the board had an adequate planting plan? Barbara F. reminded her they had a planting plan for the whole site at this time because this was an approved Best Possible Location and all the area, except the wall was addressed. He is now stating he will use mulch and shrubs in the wall location. Also the replacement of trees.

Shapleigh Planning Board – Wednesday 12/13/17 Page 6 of 15

Madge B. moved for approval of the replacement of the retaining wall, same location and same size not to exceed five feet in height on Map 26, Lot 40 per the information that was submitted by the applicant. Steve F. 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 5 – 0.

Nothing further was discussed.

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

The Findings of Facts

1. The owner of Shapleigh Tax Map 26, Lot 40 (7 Buccaneer’s Way), is Bradford Sweet, mailing address of 25 Holmgrem Road, Stratham, New Hampshire 03885.

2. The property is located in the Shoreland District and according to the assessor contains 0.24 acres.

3. The applicant is before the board for an amendment to a Best Possible Location to replace the existing retaining wall.

4. Received was a plan depicting the property showing the retaining wall to be replaced, the trees to be removed and where new trees will be placed on the property; pictures of the existing railroad tie retaining wall and trees to be removed; a plan for the new wall to be built which depicted the concrete block units, filter fabric and stone to be used behind the new wall, geogrid reinforcement, the base material and the upper and lower finished grade.

5. The project description read as follows:

Tax Map 26, Lot 40

Replace existing retaining wall and replace in same location and dimensions with updated building materials.

Existing wall is 24’ across the front with an average height of less than 4’ across front and less than 2’ on the sides.

Wall is entirely set on property; no area of wall or disturbance will impact abutters.

Construction design and materials attached on separate paperwork.

4 trees to be removed marked in yellow highlight on plot plan.

2 – 6’ Maple trees or similar to be planted as near to new retaining wall as feasible (green highlight)

2 – 6’ Maple trees or similar to be planted along inside of West boundary line.

6. The detailed description of the project stated: Replace existing retaining wall, remove 3 trees. Wall will be same size and location.

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

8. A notice was mailed to all abutters within 500 feet of the property on November 15, 2017. Meetings were held on November 14, 2017, November 28, 2017 and December 12, 2017. A site inspection was done by members on an individual basis.

Shapleigh Planning Board – Wednesday 12/13/17 Page 7 of 15

9. The Planning Board unanimously agreed to approve the amendment to a Best Possible Location to replace the existing railroad tie wall with cement blocks from Genest Concrete, same length and location, not to exceed five feet in height 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 to establish a new date.
  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.
  3. 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’, a motion was made on Wednesday, December 13, 2017, to approve the amendment to a Best Possible Location to replace the existing railroad tie wall with cement blocks from Genest Concrete, same location, same length not to exceed five feet in height to be located on Map 26, Lot 40, per the plans provided with three conditions.

Vote:

By a unanimous vote of 5 – 0, the motion to approve the amendment to a Best Possible Location to replace the existing railroad tie wall with cement blocks from Genest Concrete, same location, same length not to exceed five feet in height to be located on Map 26, Lot 40, per the plans provided with three conditions was accepted.

Decision:

The amendment to a Best Possible Location to replace the existing railroad tie wall with cement blocks from Genest Concrete in the same location, same length not to exceed five feet in height, to be located on Map 26, Lot 40, per the plans provided with three conditions was approved.

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

Minor Subdivision – 3 Lots – Map 9, Part of Lot 1A (Apple Road & West Shore Drive) – LinePro Land Surveying, Representing; James Chadbourne, Property Owner

Mr. Joseph Stanley of LinePro Land Surveying was present for the review of the application.

The application for the 3 lot subdivision contained the following information:

Name of Property Owner: James Chadbourne of 173 Butternut Trail, Wells, Maine 04090

Name of Authorized Agent: Joseph Stanley of LinePro Land Surveying LLC, 455 Main Street, Springvale, Maine 04083

Land Information:

Location of Property: YCRD Book 16904, Page 325

Shapleigh Tax Map 9, Part of Lot 1A

Shapleigh Planning Board – Wednesday 12/13/17 Page 8 of 15

Current Zoning: General Purpose

Part of the Property lies within 250 of the high-water mark of a pond or river.

Acreage to be

Developed: 9 Acres

Property is not part of a prior subdivision.

There have been no divisions within 5 years.

Existing Use: Wood Lot

The parcel does include a waterbody.

The parcel is not within a special flood hazard area.

Proposed Name of

Development: Hidden Cove

Number of Lots: (3) Three

Date of Construction: Fall of 2018

Date of Completion: Fall of 2019

Infrastructure

Required: No

The property currently has road access.

Estimated Cost of

Improvements: $25,000 – Private Way

Method of Water

Supply: Individual Wells

Method of Sewer

Disposal: Individual Septic Systems

Method of Fire

Protection: Possibly Sprinklers, not certain at this time.

There are no Proposed: Streets

Recreation Areas

Common Land

Requested Waiver(s): To be submitted with sketch plan.

Also provided with the application was a Preliminary plan of the proposed three lot division.

The plan depicted Lot 1 as being 2.00 Acres in size, Lot #2 as being 4.05 Acres in size (2.39 Acres Net); and Lot #3 being 2.62 Acres in size. The plan also had proposed building envelopes and contour lines for Lot #1 and #2, the location of a wetland on Lot #2, as well as a brook that ran through both Lot #2 and Lot #3. The location of Apple Road and West Shore Drive were depicted and the Acton / Shapleigh town line which abuts Lot #1.

Roger A. asked Mr. Stanley to let the board know what new information he had. Note: Board members did a site inspection on Sunday December 3rd, as well as on an individual basis.

Mr. Stanley provided the board members with the test pit information done by Kenneth Gardner, SE #23 on 12/7/17. He also provided members with another draft plan dated 12/13/17 that depicted the locations of the test pit on each of the lots, with each lot having two test pit locations at this time.

Mr. Stanley recapped for the board that he and his client were proposing a 3 lot minor subdivision bordering Square Pond with one lot utilizing Apple Road as its access and two lots utilizing West Shore Drive in Acton. He said that three members did the site walk with him, along with one of the neighbors who will inform other neighbors, who were only there seasonally, about what is taking place. He noted that a list of abutters from the Acton side was furnished along with the application, so they will be notified as well.

Shapleigh Planning Board – Wednesday 12/13/17 Page 9 of 15

He stated the new plan showed 2 passing soils test on each lot and chances are Lot #3 will be modified when the septic system is designed. He said there is additional wetland, so the building envelope shifted to accommodate this. He asked the board if they had any additional concerns and comments before he began additional engineering for the project.

Roger A. stated his concern was the road, perhaps a wall will be needed off of West Shore Drive due to the topography and plowing. He spoke about the width of the road, the bump out, etc. Mr. Stanley said the engineers will have a grading plan for the road probably by the next meeting. Mr. Stanley also noted that the Acton Road Commissioner wanted several trees removed and an easement to stack snow. The RC wanted more than verbal permission which he understood. He stated there was 40 feet of West Shore Drive that will be connected to the private way and it shouldn’t be a big issue.

Roger A. asked about paving the private way and where the turn-around will be. Mr. Stanley showed Roger where the Acton RC wanted to use for a turn-around area for the snow plows. Saying again, this is why an easement would be needed. Roger spoke about the area that needed to be paved. Mr. Stanley asked if the private way had to be paved. Roger said yes, a private right-of-way had to be paved 12 feet in width in a subdivision.

Roger A. discussed the mother lot and the 3 lots being reviewed, he said because they come from the mother lot, it creates a 4 lot subdivision, not a 3 lot subdivision. He said that it would still be a minor subdivision. Mr. Stanley said if they feel they have a concept this parcel will be separated from the original parcel. Roger said the first division creates 2 lots. Mr. Stanley did not disagree but said that in State law the first division is exempt from subdivision review. Roger said the remaining lot or land would still need to have 200 feet of road frontage so you are not creating a non-conforming lot. Mr. Stanley agreed and he said there is more than adequate road frontage on Apple Road. He stated he had an overall boundary survey on all the parcels. Roger said the mother parcel would not have to meet all the requirements of the subdivision review but it has to be a conforming lot and he felt it still created 4 lots. Mr. Stanley said again there was a survey on all the pieces Mr. Chadbourne owns and the mother lot has over 2000 feet of frontage on Apple Road which he can provide.

Roger A. said the waivers will have to be provided and he pointed out the powerline runs through the parcel. Mr. Stanley said from a surveyor’s standpoint he was happy how it was laid out, especially when dealing with the topography on site.

Roger A. stated that under §89-36 ‘Street design standards’ he had a question about Apple Road. Apple Road is very narrow and if ever it got widened, road re-alignment needs to be on the plan. Mr. Stanley agreed as the road is only 33 feet wide at this point in time. He said he would go out to 50 feet on the plan. An additional 17 feet will be added for an expansion.

Steve F. said this might also affect the test pits on Lot #3 or the septic design. He wasn’t sure what the setback for those to the right-of-way might be. Mr. Stanley believed it was 10 feet but he believed any building will need to be moved back on the lot, therefore, the septic design will need to be done farther back from the lot line.

Mr. Stanley asked if there were any additional concerns? He said at the next meeting he hoped to provide the formal detailed plan. Roger A. didn’t have any other issues, nor did members. Nothing further was discussed.

Roger wanted Mr. Stanley to know that the plan had to be received by board members seven days prior to the meeting.

Shapleigh Planning Board – Wednesday 12/13/17 Page 10 of 15

Best Possible Location – Replace Existing Structure – Map 39, Lot 31 (139 Granny Kent Pond Road) – Christopher Colwell, Applicant & Owner

Mr. & Mrs. Colwell were present for the review of the application. Note: Most members did a site inspection on December 3rd. Others did it on their own.

Along with the application, Mr. Colwell provided a plan which depicted the location of the existing structure, as well as the proposed location of the new structure. Measurements from the existing and proposed structure to the lake, side lot lines and to Granny Kent Pond Road were provided. Existing distance from the camp to Granny Kent Pond at the closest point is 74.45 feet; existing distance to Granny Kent Pond Road is 5.99 feet at the closest point; existing distance to Lot 32 is 3.35 feet to the closest point; and existing distance to Lot 30 is 15.80 at the closest point.

The proposed structure distance measurements are as follows: 74.60 at the closest point to Granny Kent Pond; 7.03 feet to Granny Kent Pond Road; 14.24 feet to Lot 32; and 13.91 feet to Lot 30. It was also noted on the plan that the proposed building would be 600 S.F.

The detailed description on the application states: Replace structure with one floor and full basement.

This evening Mr. Colwell provided members with a plan that showed a 6 foot replanting plan for the perimeter around the new structure and where the old structure will be removed, as well as a copy of the MDEP Certificate of Training in Erosion Control for James Fiske of Mousam Valley Builders, Inc. of Acton Maine.

Roger A. asked Mr. Colwell to let the board know what further information he had. Mr. Colwell stated he had a replanting schedule which would be mulch and blueberry bushes, coming six feet out from the foundation of the new structure and where the old structure will be removed. He stated there was a tree on site but he didn’t think he would have to remove it. He sent in his application of the DEP Permit by rule but he wasn’t sure if it was back or not. CEO McDonough stated that he had received his copy today.

Mr. Colwell stated that he spoke with Mousam Valley Builders and they said they were certified and he thought they would be the ones doing the replanting plan.

CEO McDonough asked again if there would be any tree removal? Mr. Colwell did not believe there would be, stating there was one by the old structure but did not feel it had to be removed to remove the structure. Mr. Colwell stated that he had his septic design which was across the street.

Roger A. asked about a time frame? Mr. Colwell stated that if he started in April and had the shell up and closed in, then he would finish the inside insulation and sheetrock himself. Roger asked if September 15, 2018 would work to have the shell up and the replanting done? Mr. Colwell believed it would and he asked if it could get extended if needed? Roger said yes, he could tell CEO McDonough that you would not be done and get a new date.

CEO McDonough, looking at the replanting plan, asked Mr. Colwell how the area would be addressed? Is the whole area erosion control mulch? Mr. Colwell said he would like to put some loam in and maybe some plantings. CEO McDonough wanted a plan that was more specific and he wanted Mr. Colwell to know an area greater than 6 feet would be disturbed with the new foundation. He said once all the dirt is disturbed, how will the area be restabilized, he needed to have more specifics on the plan. CEO McDonough did not care if it was going to be all erosion control mulch but he needed it on the plan. Mr. Colwell stated that he would like some shrubbery. CEO McDonough said he needed something specific, so in a year from now he had an idea of what was agreed upon, so there would be no argument. Mr. Colwell stated, “Ok.”

Shapleigh Planning Board – Wednesday 12/13/17 Page 11 of 15

Barbara F. gave Mr. Colwell a copy of a sample plan. CEO McDonough tried to show him some of the detail that should be on the plan. Mr. Colwell asked if he needed something written? CEO McDonough stated that a text description would work. He needed to know what would be going down in the disturbed area.

Roger A. asked if CEO McDonough wanted to approve the revegetation plan? CEO McDonough stated that it was fine, the board could have him approve the plan in the conditions of approval.

Roger A. stated the conditions of approval would be as follows:

1) The foundation, groundwork and replanting shall be completed by September 15, 2018. The vegetation and mulch location shall be provided on the plan presented.

2) The replanting plan shall be approved by the Code Enforcement Officer prior to obtaining a building permit.

3) Best management practices shall be kept in place until the groundwork and replanting plan is completed and the work shall be done by a person licensed by the MDEP in erosion control.

Barbara F. let the board know 2 emails were received by abutters, both had no issue with the project. One from Lisa & Russell Gray and the other Barbara Britten. Ms. Britten asked that the board be certain the project did not impact her property or Granny Kent Pond.

Madge B. moved for approval of the Best Possible Location to replace the existing structure on Tax Map 39, Lot 31 per the plan provided and with the above stated conditions. Maggie M. 2nd the motion. All members were in favor.

Nothing further was discussed.

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

The Findings of Facts

1. The owner of Shapleigh Tax Map 39, Lot 31 (139 Granny Kent Pond Road), is Christopher C. Colwell, mailing address of 5 Old Wakefield Road, Rochester, New Hampshire 03868.

2. The property is located in the Shoreland District and according to the assessor contains 0.14 acres.

3. The applicant is before the board for an amendment to a Best Possible Location to replace the existing structure.

4. Received was a plan which depicted the location of the existing structure, as well as the proposed location of the new structure. Measurements from the existing and proposed structure to the lake, side lot lines and to Granny Kent Pond Road were provided. Existing distance from the camp to Granny Kent Pond at the closest point is 74.45 feet; existing distance to Granny Kent Pond Road is 5.99 feet at the closest point; existing distance to Lot 32 is 3.35 feet to the closest point; and existing distance to Lot 30 is 15.80 at the closest point. The proposed structure distance measurements are as follows: 74.60 at the closest point to Granny Kent Pond; 7.03 feet to Granny Kent Pond Road; 14.24 feet to Lot 32; and 13.91 feet to Lot 30. It was also noted on the plan that the proposed building would be 600 S.F.

Shapleigh Planning Board – Wednesday 12/13/17 Page 12 of 15

5. Received was a plan that showed a 6 foot replanting plan for the perimeter around the new structure and where the old structure will be removed, as well as a copy of the MDEP Certificate of Training in Erosion Control for James Fiske of Mousam Valley Builders, Inc. of Acton Maine, the contractor to be used for the project.

6. The detailed description of the project stated: Replace structure with one floor and full basement.

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

8. A notice was mailed to all abutters within 500 feet of the property on November 29, 2017. Meetings were held on November 28, 2017, December 13, 2017. A site inspection was done by members on an individual basis.

9. The Planning Board unanimously agreed to approve the amendment to a Best Possible Location to replace the existing structure with three conditions as follows: The proposed structure distance measurements are 74.60 at the closest point to Granny Kent Pond; 7.03 feet to Granny Kent Pond Road; 14.24 feet to Lot 32; and 13.91 feet to Lot 30. It was also noted on the plan that the proposed building would be 600 S.F.

10. The conditions of approval are:

1) The foundation, groundwork and replanting shall be completed by September 15, 2018. The vegetation and mulch location shall be provided on the plan presented.

2) The replanting plan shall be approved by the Code Enforcement Officer prior to obtaining a building permit.

3) Best management practices shall be kept in place until the groundwork and replanting is completed and the work shall be done by a person licensed by the MDEP in erosion control.

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’, a motion was made on Wednesday, December 13, 2017, to approve the Best Possible Location to replace the existing structure located on Map 39, Lot 31, per the plans provided with three conditions.

Vote:

By a unanimous vote of 5 – 0, the motion to approve the Best Possible Location to replace the existing structure located on Map 39, Lot 31, per the plans provided with three conditions, was accepted.

Decision:

The amendment to a Best Possible Location to approve the Best Possible Location to replace the existing structure located on Map 39, Lot 31, per the plans provided with three conditions was approved.

Shapleigh Planning Board – Wednesday 12/13/17 Page 13 of 15

Best Possible Location – Replace Existing Structure – Map 18, Lot 18 (5 1st Street) – Steve Foglio, Applicant

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

In addition to the application, provided was a plan which depicted the existing structures, parking area and driveway, well, existing septic tank and field, along with the approximate boundary line with Map 18, Lot 19 (noting that this boundary was still under investigation). The distance from the existing structure to Mousam Lake at the closest point is depicted as 51.2 feet and to the lot line of Lot 19, 24.2 feet. The 100 foot line to the lake is also noted on the plan and at this time the existing structure lies within the 100 foot mark. The existing grade is on the plan, and it shows the lot as being 1.26 acres in size.

The detailed description of the project states: Tear down existing home & rebuild new.

Roger A. asked Steve F. to tell the board what he wanted to do.

Steve F. stated they would be removing the existing structure due to mold. He said the replant plan will be on the final plan. The plan is to replace the existing structure and rebuild with the same setback to the water. He stated the existing structure is on a partial foundation, and partially on a full foundation. Madge B. asked about the plan, what exactly was it showing? Steve said it was everything that is on site at this time.

Madge B. asked if the new house would be the same size and shape? Steve F. stated the new house would be modified further back from the water. Madge asked what the blue dotted line was? Steve said, “The shoreland zone. I’m sorry, the 100 foot setback.”

Roger A. asked if he wanted to move the house back? Steve F. said they wanted to keep the house where it is because of the topography of the lot and where the well and septic are. He said all modification to the house will be back further from the water. Madge asked what he meant by modifications? Steve said the house plan would be this structural size plus a garage. Steve noted the board is only allowed to look at the existing structure.

CEO McDonough asked what the size of the lot was? Steve F. stated it was 1.26 acres in size. He said the number is subject to change depending on where the boundary line ends up. Currently there is an issue between Lot 18 & Lot 19. The grey line on the plan is the current survey line for 1st street and the dotted green line is the proposed line. Steve introduced the owners of Lot 19, Linda and Jan Rajchel. Steve noted that where the green and grey lines intersect is the closest point to the structure.

Roger A. asked if the pavement would be removed if a garage was put up. Steve F. agreed it would. Steve said they would try to build the house as high as they can to work with the hill and try to keep the grade as natural as possible. Steve said he was looking for the front corners of the new structure to be where the existing is.

Roger A. said wherever the board approves the new structure, that is where it needs to go. If the structure gets moved back from the water 10 more feet after approval, then it would have to come back before the board for the new location. Anything beyond the 100 foot mark is through the Code Enforcement Department.

Roger A. stated the board will need to know when the project will start and an end date for the replanting plan. Steve F. stated they planned on starting on April 1, 2018 and complete it by September 30, 2018. Steve F. said he would have a larger plan for the next meeting.

Shapleigh Planning Board – Wednesday 12/13/17 Page 14 of 15

Roger A. stated a notice to abutters will be mailed and members will go on a site inspection on an individual basis.

Nothing further was discussed.

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

Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit – Business Selling Furniture & Home Décor – Map 7, Lot 3-2 (926 Shapleigh Corner Road) – Sharon Tombarelli, Applicant; James Correggio, Property Owner.

Ms. Tombarelli was unable to make the meeting. She spoke with Barbara F. and stated she was available by telephone if needed.

Roger A. stated that Ms. Tombarelli is looking to open her business in what was the building that housed the snowmobile club. Madge B. asked if there would be any new building? Roger said no new buildings and it will use the existing parking area.

Roland L. asked if they were closing the flea market? Barbara F. said the flea market was staying open. He said a shed was added to the site on the side of the snowmobile club on the left. Roger A. said the area behind the building was leveled and the area is opened up (approved earth moving permit 9/16).

It was asked how many businesses have been approved in this location? Based on past approvals, 2 uses have been approved in the large building and then a use in the snowmobile club building. So three uses on this lot have been approved at the same time. CEO McDonough stated there was the flea market, redemption center and snowmobile club. Then it was the flea market, snowmobile club and package store which did not happen.

Roland L. asked about the current storage in the large building, which is advertised, is that an approved use? CEO McDonough and other board members did not believe so. Madge B. asked how many acres are with this lot? She thought the board needed to know. Roger A. looked at the town map and it appeared the lot was 3.91 acres, 510 feet of road frontage.

It was concluded that three uses have been approved on this property at one time. The snowmobile club was used for the snowmobile club and then the four wheeler club. Roger A. noted they also came before the board for a meeting hall in the snowmobile club but it never materialized.

Roger A. stated a public hearing would be held on this because it was a business. A notice to abutters will be mailed as well. Board members didn’t need to do a site inspection as everyone was familiar with the existing location and business site.

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

Nothing further was discussed.

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

Growth Permits

There are growth permits available.

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

Shapleigh Planning Board – Wednesday 12/13/17 Page 15 of 15

The Planning Board meeting ended at 8:25 p.m.

NOTE: The winter hours are in effect thru April 1st, the meeting begins at 6:30 p.m. and any scheduled public hearing begins at 6:00 p.m.

The next meeting will be held Tuesday, December 26, 2017 at 6:30 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 6:00 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 6:30 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