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

SHAPLEIGH PLANNING BOARD

MINUTES

Tuesday, December 26, 2017

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

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

Minutes are not verbatim, unless in quotes “”

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

Public Hearing began at 6:00 p.m.

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.

Sharon and Steve Tombarelli attended the public hearing.

Roger A. opened the public hearing by asking Mrs. Tombarelli what she intended to do. Mrs. Tombarelli stated she wanted to open a store to sell rustic furniture, home décor and gifts. Roger asked if they would be using the entire clubhouse? Mrs. Tombarelli stated, “Yes”. Madge B. didn’t think it was a large structure. Mrs. Tombarelli agreed and said they would probably fill every inch of it.

Madge B. asked if there would be any hazardous or dangerous material on site? Mrs. Tombarelli stated there would not, not that she was aware of. Madge asked if it had a bathroom? Mrs. Tombarelli stated that it did but she did not plan on having it available to the public unless she had to. Madge asked if she was serving any food? Mrs. Tombarelli stated she was not. In light of this the board did not feel she would have to open the bathroom facilities to the public.

Roger A. asked what the hours of operation would be? Mrs. Tombarelli decided to have the hours of operation from 9:00 a.m. thru 7:00 p.m., in case of a late delivery, seven days a week. Roger and Madge B. noted that it was best to ask for the longest hours that they may need so they didn’t have to come back before the board to amend their permit.

Ann H. asked if any of the products would be made by the applicants, or would it all be purchased? Mrs. Tombarelli stated that it would all be purchased and delivered.

Madge B. asked if there would be any outside lighting? Mrs. Tombarelli stated there would be some lighting in the windows and also on a sign in front. She didn’t foresee any additional lighting. Madge thought the parking area was close to the building. Mrs. Tombarelli agreed. She stated from the parking area to the building was a walkway.

Roger A. asked if anything would be placed outside? Mrs. Tombarelli thought they may have some outdoor furniture displayed during business hours, it would be stored inside at night. Roger wanted to know how much of an area would be used? Mr. Tombarelli thought it would be several Adirondack chairs and a table, so it would not take up a large area. He noted it was a thick poly furniture, it was not flimsy. Steve F. suggested the board allow 200 S.F. to be used for the outdoor furniture. The other members and the applicants agreed to this figure.

Page 1 of 17

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes ~ 12/26/17 Page 2 of 17

Madge B. asked about what would be done with trash? Mrs. Tombarelli thought she would get a permit to use the Shapleigh Transfer Station. The waste would be minimal, most of it materials to be recycled, such as the cardboard that the furniture is shipped in. They did not plan on having a dumpster.

Ann H. asked if there was enough room for large delivery trucks? Roger A. believed there was plenty of room, it was a very large parking area.

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

The public hearing closed at 6:10 p.m.

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

The minutes from Wednesday, December 13, 2017 were accepted as read.

The planning board meeting started at 6:30 p.m.

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

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.

Provided to members at the first meeting on August 8, 2017, 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.

Received this evening was a revised survey plan drafted by Dana A. Libby, PLS 1350 of Corner Post Land Surveyors, dated December 20, 2017 which depicted the proposed driveway. The plan showed the 100 foot setback to the high water mark, and that the entire loop driveway is beyond this mark; 38 trees to be removed both dead and live trees, along with proposed replacement tree locations; the location of the proposed block retaining wall; and elevations on site in the vicinity of the proposed loop driveway. The plan also noted the location of an existing structure, septic tank, outhouse, and sewer lines, along with proposed stairs between the looping driveway and the existing structure. The plan noted the total disturbed area would be 4,921 S.F.

Received this evening was a drainage analysis plan for the looping driveway, written by Thomas S. Greer, P.E. #4206 of Pinkham & Greer Civil Engineers, dated December 12, 2017. The plan included a description of the tear drop driveway to be created, stormwater design for a 50 year storm, which at present is 7.3” in 24 hours; the type of soil on site was noted as Colton which has a high infiltration rate; a HydroCad Analysis of an infiltration system to minimize runoff into Mousam Lake giving a description of the system to be used; what type of erosion control measures would work best in this location, and what would best stabilize the cut slopes above the driveway.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes ~ 12/26/17 Page 3 of 17

Received this evening was a copy of the Site Map, Soils Map, Google Earth Aerial Map, Rainfall Chart, HydroCad Calculations, Drainage Ring, EC Berm & Silt Sack Detail, Catch Basic Protection and Site Plan. The Site Plan showed the approximate location of the Drainage Ring, stating that the driveway is to slope to the ring a minimum of 1’ – 0” below top of wall. The Site Plan also depicted the location of the silt fence or erosion control berm.

Roger A. asked Mr. Batson to let the board know what he had for the board. Mr. Batson passed out new information that was requested by the board. The board reviewed the new plan. Mr. Batson stated that the trees shown were the 38 trees that would have to be removed according to Dana Libby of Corner Post Land Surveying. He said there were White Pine and hardwood, each was noted separately, along with four dead trees.

Mr. Batson stated the entire driveway would slope into the center teardrop area. There were drainage calculations and a drawing that shows the detention cylinder and he noted the new drainage figure is 7.3” vs the 6” that it used to be, based on new rainfall totals. He stated he and Mr. Greer agreed to do the stormwater calculations based on the area being paved, so if down the road someone wanted to pave it the calculations would be based on that.

Ann H. asked the height of the block wall. Mr. Batson stated it would be four feet, 3 blocks by 18” in height with 6” in the ground.

Roger A. asked if he was planning on replanting any trees? Mr. Batson stated he was, and showed Roger where this information was located. Roger said the information did not show exactly where the trees would be located. Mr. Batson agreed but it said the area that they should be planted. He showed Roger on the plan where he believed they would be going. He wanted to use Norway Pine because they grew fast and had a deeper root system than a White Pine. Roger noted that trees going in had to be 6 feet in height from the root ball up. Mr. Batson said the root ball would disturb more soil, he was planning to use a bar to poke a hole and put the tree in. He didn’t think there would be enough room for 38 trees using a root ball. Roger was concerned because the ordinance was specific with respect to the size of the tree. Ann H. noted that they cannot be all the same type either. Ann asked if Mr. Batson got a statement from an arborist that said 38 trees would not survive because they would be too close together, if that would work?

Steve F. asked about §105-51.C, if this applied, he believed it did. Madge B. reviewed the ordinance and because the project was beyond the 100 foot mark to the high water mark, she did not believe the board had the ability to ask Mr. Batson to replant any trees. It was up to him if he wanted to replant. Madge stated that up to 40% could be taken, she referred the board to §105-51 ‘Clearing or removal of vegetation for activities other than timber harvesting’ Section C where it states in part that at a distance greater than 100 feet from a great pond on any lot, in any ten-year period, selective cutting of not more than 40% volume of trees four inches or more in diameter can be removed. Madge did not believe the board could require Mr. Batson to replant but she thought it would be best for the site location that he did some replanting. CEO McDonough stated the 40% applied to the entire lot. Madge agreed.

CEO McDonough asked if the project was greater than 100 feet from the high water mark? Madge B. stated it was entirely beyond the 100 foot mark. Mr. Batson agreed. Mr. Batson said that at best he is removing 20% of the trees over 100 feet from the shore. Roger A. thought 7 were within the 100 feet. The board looked at the drawing and the trees he was referring to that were not being cut. Mr. Batson said it was his fault, he stated they were all getting cut. Ann noted that only the trees with the X were being removed.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes ~ 12/26/17 Page 4 of 17

CEO McDonough asked again, wanting to be sure, that no trees were being removed within 100 feet of the water. Mr. Batson stated that he was correct. CEO McDonough asked if any soil was being disturbed within 100 feet of the water? Mr. Batson stated, “No”.

Roland L. asked about a proposed stairwell, was it for this project? Mr. Batson said there would be stairs like Acadia National Park logs for steps down from the parking area to the cottage. He felt this was more appealing.

Roger A. asked how many yards of fill would be excavated out? Mr. Batson stated that Dana Libby of Corner Post stated they would probably haul out none or move in none, other than the gravel at the top. He said the cuts on the side are enough to fill in behind the wall and then there needed to be 6 to 8 inches of crushed gravel brought in for the top. The blocks, and crushed rock for the drain at the top. It was noted the total disturbed area would be 4,921 S.F. as noted on the plan presented, of that 2,998 S.F. is the driveway.

Roger A. stated there was no earth moving being done within 100 feet of the high water mark. Madge B. and Steve F. said, “Except for the stairs”. Roger asked Mr. Batson if there would be earth moving for the stairs and he stated there would not. He said they would be pressure treated 2 x 12’s with concrete anchors sitting on the surface.

Roger A. asked if the sewer line under the driveway would be affected? Mr. Batson said it would not, it is deep enough not to be affected.

Roger A. asked when the project would be completed? Mr. Batson said he wanted to have the trees removed before the sap begins to move. He thought that would take some time. He noted if he could keep some of the 38 trees he would. He wanted the project done before the roads were posted in the spring. Roger said the board needed to have a date for completion to be sure all erosion control measure are in place until the area is stabilized. Mr. Batson said when he walked the property with the contractor doing the project, he believed the project, once started would only take a week. Mr. Batson thought they would be finished by May 1st. He asked if July 1st would work? Roger said it was up to him. Mr. Batson was comfortable to say he would be done by July 1, 2018.

CEO McDonough asked what blocks he was using? Mr. Batson said he was using Genest Concrete blocks, called London Boulders. They were 18” x 18” x 42”. It would be three tiers high. He noted where it was described in the information he provided to board members and CEO McDonough. He agreed the print was small and members may not have seen it.

Mr. Batson said Mr. Greer preferred they used stump grindings instead of silt fencing and bales of hay in this location. He also wanted this used in any of the cuts. Mr. Batson said he already bought the fence but preferred the stump grindings. Roger A. thought due to the slope they could or should use both. Roger noted that the person doing the project had to be DEP certified in erosion control. Mr. Batson stated his contractor is certified. Mr. Batson stated that the issue with Mr. Greer is digging the fence into the soil, he preferred not to have the soil disturbed. Mr. Batson understood the concern, especially if there is a heavy storm.

Roger A. stated that the wall is listed in the four or five foot range but the board is going to say four feet. Mr. Batson agreed and said at first they were discussing a seven foot wall but Corner Post did not understand this was for single family vehicles only.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes ~ 12/26/17 Page 5 of 17

Roger A. stated the catch basin is 7’4” diameter and 4’ deep. Roger was surprised a heavy duty cover was being used. Mr. Batson said in case someone accidently drove over it, it would hold up. He noted it would be used by tourists.

Roger A. stated the conditions of approval would be:

1) Completion date of September 1, 2018.

2) Contractor to be certified in erosion control measures.

3) The total trees replaced will be 24, the species to be something that will survive in this area. Placement and type of tree is up to the applicant.

4) The wall to be built per the specifications provided, using London Boulders from Genest Concrete.

Roger reviewed §105-39 ‘Earth removal and filling other than mineral exploration and extraction’ as follows:

G. Conditions of permit. The Planning Board may issue a permit, provided that the following conditions shall be met:

(1) The smallest amount of bare ground shall be exposed for the shortest time feasible. The Planning Board shall set a specific date after which bare ground shall not be exposed.

Roger A. stated a completion date of 9/1/18 was set for this project.

(2) Temporary ground cover (such as mulch) and temporary runoff filter (such as hay bales in swales) shall be used as required to prevent stream sedimentation. The Planning Board shall set a specific date by which permanent ground cover shall be planted.

Roger A. stated best management practices shall be put in place by someone certified by the State in erosion control methods. The date for permanent ground cover shall be 9/1/18.

(3) Diversions, silting basins, terraces and other methods to trap sediment shall be used.

Roger A. stated a catch basin has been designed for stormwater.

(4) Lagooning shall be conducted in such a manner as to avoid creation of fish trap conditions. The applicant shall submit written approval from the Department of Marine Resources or Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, as applicable, prior to consideration by the Planning Board.

Roger A. stated there is no lagooning to be done.

(5) The extent and type of fill shall be appropriate to the use intended. The applicant shall specify the type and amount of fill to be used.

Roger A. stated the board saw what material was used on the site visit, it is existing fill.

(6) Fill shall not restrict a floodway, channel or natural drainageway.

Roger A. stated that it will not.

(7) The sides and bottom of cuts, fills, channels and artificial watercourses shall be constructed and stabilized to prevent erosion or failure. Such structures are to be designed and built according to the Maine Soil and Water Conservation Commission, Technical Guide, Standards and Specifications.

Roger A. stated there is an engineered plan for this project, noting that Mr. Greer most likely used all of the above standards.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes ~ 12/26/17 Page 6 of 17

(8) Where activities carried out under this article require the removal of existing ground cover, revegetation should be carried out.

Roger A. stated there was no existing ground vegetation at this time, mostly pine needles. Bark mulch and stump groundings shall be placed per the plan.

(9) (Reserved)

(10) Specific plans are established to avoid hazards from excessive slopes or standing water. Where embankment must be left upon the completion of operations, it shall be at a slope not steeper than one foot vertical to four feet horizontal.

Roger A. stated there is an engineered plan for this project.

(11) No excavation shall be extended below the grade of an adjacent street, except for drainageways, unless 100 feet from the street line. No excavation below the grade of the surrounding land shall be allowed within 100 feet of any side or rear lot line. However, removal of earth material deposits from hills or knolls may be allowed within 50 feet of a side or rear lot line if no excavation below the grade of abutter’s properties occurs.

Roger A. stated the project is not going any deeper than the existing ground level.

(12) Sufficient topsoil or loam shall be retained to cover all areas, so that they may be seeded and restored to natural conditions.

Roger A. stated the existing soil will remain on site.

(13) No existing rock, gravel or sandpit will be extended or expanded until the operator has complied with the provisions of this chapter and obtained a permit therefore.

Roger A. stated this was not applicable.

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

Roger A. 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. Roger A. stated, it will not.

2) The use will conserve shore cover and visual, as well as actual, access to water bodies. Roger A. stated this is not applicable.

3) The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Roger A. stated it is.

4) Traffic access to the site is safe. Roger A. stated it is.

5) The site design is in conformance with all municipal flood hazard protection regulations. Roger A. stated it is, the project is not in the flood zone.

6) Adequate provision for the disposal of all wastewater and solid waste has been made. Roger A. stated the only solid waste is the trees being removed, stumpage will be kept on site.

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

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes ~ 12/26/17 Page 7 of 17

8) A stormwater drainage system capable of handling fifty-year storm without adverse impact on adjacent properties has been designed. Roger A. stated there is a stormwater management plan designed by Thomas S. Greer, P.E. #4206 of Pinkham & Greer Civil Engineers.

9) Adequate provisions to control soil erosion and sedimentation have been made. Roger A. stated an erosion control plan was designed by Thomas S. Greer, P.E. #4206 of Pinkham & Greer Civil Engineers.

10) There is adequate water supply to meet the demands of the proposed use and for fire protection purposes. Roger A. stated this is not applicable.

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 should be minimal disturbance, none beyond the property lines.

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

Roger A. stated the conditions of approval are:

1) The project is to be completed by September 1, 2018.

2) The retaining wall to be used for the construction of the looping driveway shall be per the specifications provided, the product used is known as London Boulder from Genest Concrete.

3) The total trees replaced will be 24, the species to be something that will survive in this area. Placement and type of tree is up to the applicant.

4) Contractor to be used on the project must be DEP Certified in Erosion Control Practices.

Roland L. made the motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit to create a parking area and driveway on Map 23, Lot 2-9, per the plans provided with four conditions. Madge B. 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 owner of Shapleigh Tax Map 23, Lot 2-9 (22 Dancehall Drive), is Roland Russ Batson of 11 Dancehall Drive, Shapleigh, Maine 04076.

2. The property itself is located both in the General Purpose and Shoreland District; the work is to be done in the Shoreland District and according to the assessor the property contains 2.40 acres.

3. The detailed project description states: Create a parking area using “CMP Road” and a “loop” like drive thru, with back sloping drainage system.

4. Received was a copy of the soils report for this location done by the US Dept. of Agriculture for York County, ME, 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 he stated 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.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes ~ 12/26/17 Page 8 of 17

5. Received was a revised survey plan drafted by Dana A. Libby, PLS 1350 of Corner Post Land Surveyors, dated December 20, 2017 which depicted the proposed driveway. The plan showed the 100 foot setback to the high water mark, and that the entire loop driveway is beyond this mark; 38 trees to be removed both dead and live trees, along with proposed replacement tree locations; the location of the proposed block retaining wall; and elevations on site in the vicinity of the proposed loop driveway. The plan also noted the location of an existing structure, septic tank, outhouse, and sewer lines, along with proposed stairs between the looping driveway and the existing structure. The plan noted the total disturbed area would be 4,921 S.F.

6. Received was a drainage analysis plan for the looping driveway, written by Thomas S. Greer, P.E. #4206 of Pinkham & Greer Civil Engineers, dated December 12, 2017. The plan included a description of the tear drop driveway to be created, stormwater design for a 50 year storm, which at present is 7.3” in 24 hours; the type of soil on site was noted as Colton which has a high infiltration rate; a HydroCad Analysis of an infiltration system to minimize runoff into Mousam Lake giving a description of the system to be used; what type of erosion control measures would work best in this location, and what would best stabilize the cut slopes above the driveway.

7. Received was a copy of the Site Map, Soils Map, Google Earth Aerial Map, Rainfall Chart, HydroCad Calculations, Drainage Ring, EC Berm & Silt Sack Detail, Catch Basic Protection and Site Plan. The Site Plan showed the approximate location of the Drainage Ring, stating that the driveway is to slope to the ring a minimum of 1’ – 0” below top of wall. The Site Plan also depicted the location of the silt fence or erosion control berm.

8. 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’; Section G. ‘Conditions of Permit’ and under Section I ‘Surety and terms of permit’, a surety was not warranted for this project due to the limited size and scope of the project, as well as it taking a minimal amount of time to complete.

9. The board reviewed the pertinent Basic Performance Standards and the board concurred the application met all the standards imposed.

10. 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.

11. A notice was mailed to all abutters within 500 feet of the property on August 9, 2017. A meeting was held on August 8, 2017, August 22, 2017, September 12, 2017 and December 26, 2017. A site inspection was held on August 22, 2017. Site Inspection was August 22, 2017

12. The Planning Board unanimously agreed on December 26, 2017 to approve the Conditional Use Permit for earth moving in the Shoreland District in order to create a parking area and looping driveway on Map 23, Lot 2-9, per the plans provided with conditions.

13. The conditions of approval are:

1) The project is to be completed by September 1, 2018.

2) The retaining wall to be used for the construction of the looping driveway shall be per the specifications provided, the product used is known as London Boulder from Genest Concrete.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes ~ 12/26/17 Page 9 of 17

3) The total trees replaced will be 24, the species to be something that will survive in this area. Placement and type of tree is up to the applicant.

4) Contractor to be used on the project must be DEP Certified in Erosion Control Practices.

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.

Sharon and Steve Tombarelli were present for the final review of the application.

Received by board members, along with the application, was a site plan depicting the location of the existing structures on site which included the building known as ATV Club, which is where this business will be located. The site plan also noted that there are a total of 285 parking spaces on site with 115 of these in the vicinity of the clubhouse. Route 11 is also depicted on the plan, along with where to enter and exit onto the highway.

The detailed description of the proposal is as follows: Store selling rustic furniture, home décor, and gifts. Also, outside furniture. The two employees will be Sharon and Steve Tombarelli.

Roger A. asked if the board had any additional questions for the applicants? They did not.

Roger A. began review of the Basic Performance Standards for the application.

105-17 – Land Uses. Roger A. stated the reason this application is before the board is because there is a change in use of the existing location, from an ATV Club to furniture business.

105-21 – Traffic. Roger A. stated access to the site was safe, this location was previously approved on the original CUP. Site distances can be met in both directions.

105-22 – Noise. Roger A. stated there will be no noise generated from the activity.

105-23 – Dust, fumes, vapors and gases. Roger A. stated there is no dust, fumes, vapors or gases, generated by this activity.

105-24 – Odors. Roger A. stated there will be no obnoxious odors generated.

105-25 – Glare. Roger A. stated there shall be no additional lighting added to the structure other than on the sign. This will be permitted thru the Code Enforcement Office. Madge B. asked if there would be additional lighting where you walk toward the building? Mrs. Tombarelli stated there is existing lighting on the front porch.

105-26 – Stormwater runoff. Roger A. stated there are no changes being made to the property that would cause a stormwater problem. There is an existing stormwater plan for this property.

105-27 – Erosion control. Roger A. stated there are no changes being made to the existing property that would cause an erosion issue.

105-28 – Setbacks and screening. Roger A. stated existing vegetation will remain, no changes are being made on site.

105-29 – Explosive materials. Roger A. stated, there shall be none on site and none to be generated.

105-30 – Water quality. Roger A. stated, there is no waste or hazardous material generated by this activity to affect water quality.

105-31 – Preservation of landscape; landscaping of parking and storage areas. Roger A. stated no changes are being made to the existing parking area, there is no outside storage associated with this activity.

105-32 - Relation of proposed building to the environment. Roger A. stated the building is in existence and conforms well with others in the surrounding area.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes ~ 12/26/17 Page 10 of 17

105-33 – Refuse disposal. Roger A. stated there was minimal refuse generated by this activity. The applicants will take refuse to the transfer station.

105-34 – Access Control to Route 11. Roger A. stated that the existing entrances were previously approved, there are no curb cut changes being made. The minimum site distances can be met.

105-43 – Off-street parking and loading. Roger A. stated there was plenty of off-street parking in existence at this time.

105-46 – Sanitary provisions. Roger A. stated there is an existing State approved septic design on site.

105-47Signs and billboards. Roger A. stated that all signage must be permitted and approved through the Code Enforcement Office.

Roger stated the conditions of approval are:

1) The hours of operation shall be 9:00 a.m. thru 7:00 p.m., seven days a week.

2) There shall be no more than 200 square feet covered by outdoor furniture displays at any one time.

3) Signage for the new structure shall be permitted through the Code Enforcement Office.

Madge B. made the motion to approve the amendment to a Conditional Use Permit to open a furniture and home décor business in the existing structure on Map 7, Lot 3-2. Maggie M. 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 applicant is Sharon Tombarelli of 720 East Shore Drive, Acton, Maine 04001.

2. The owner of Shapleigh Tax Map 7, Lot 3-2 (926 Shapleigh Corner Road), is James Correggio, of 6 Chestnut Road, Shapleigh, Maine 04076.

3. The property is located in the General Purpose District and according to the assessor, the property contains 3.91 acres.

4. The applicant is before the board for an Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit to open a furniture and home décor business.

5. Received was a site plan depicting the location of the existing structures on site which included the building known as ATV Club, which is where this business will be located. The site plan also noted that there are a total of 285 parking spaces on site with 115 of these in the vicinity of the clubhouse. Route 11 is also depicted on the plan, along with where to enter and exit onto the highway.

6. The detailed description of the proposal is as follows: Store selling rustic furniture, home décor, and gifts. Also, outside furniture. The two employees will be Sharon and Steve Tombarelli.

7. The board reviewed the Basic Performance Standards and the board concurred the application met all the standards imposed.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes ~ 12/26/17 Page 11 of 17

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.

9. A notice was mailed to all abutters within 500 feet of the property on December 14, 2017. Meetings were held on December 13, 2017 and December 26, 2017. A scheduled inspection was not necessary as the board members were familiar with this location.

10. The Planning Board unanimously agreed to approve the amendment to a Conditional Use Permit to open a furniture and home décor business, to be located on Map 7, Lot 3-2, per the plans provided with conditions.

11. The conditions of approval are:

1) The hours of operation shall be 9:00 a.m. thru 7:00 p.m., seven days a week.

2) There shall be no more than 200 square feet covered by outdoor furniture displays at any one time.

3) Signage for the new structure shall be permitted through the Code Enforcement Office.

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

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 stated the board received one letter from an abutter, Pat Baldwin of 21 1st Street, it read as follows:

As an abutter of this property and resident for 70+ years, I am most familiar with it. I have 2 suggestions:

1) A 20’ buffer strip of low vegetation and mulch at the water’s edge.

2) If the driveway remains a hard surfaced one, a turn-out be installed since runoff and water run from 109 in back of the present location towards the lake.

Since the watershed study of 2007, Mousam is now under consideration to again be placed on the DEP “Lake at Risk” list. Therefore, these measures should be implemented.

Roger A. asked Steve F. for the record to tell the board what he wanted to do. He stated he would love to rehab what is there but it is in a condition that it has to be torn down. They would like to rebuild with a similar house and add a garage beyond the 100 foot mark. He stated that if you look on the plan, where the garage will be placed the majority of the driveway would be removed. He said the topography slopes down into a basin and slopes back up before it goes to the water.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes ~ 12/26/17 Page 12 of 17

Madge B. asked if he was talking about taking out the pavement in the turn-around? Steve F. showed Madge on the plan where he intended to put the driveway. The well was a factor and it may have to be capped over

and be part of the driveway. He said he was not a fan of the hot-top and having to remove it for the driveway did not bother him. He agreed it would help slow down the runoff. Steve showed Madge on the map the natural swale on the property.

Steve F. stated he would probably move the septic tank but the leachfield would remain where it is at this time.

Roland L. said based on this, there would be no garage under? Steve F. stated this was correct, it would be a daylight basement because it would work in this location with the slope. The garage location would be based on shooting additional elevations.

Roland L. asked about the Rhododendrons and large shrubs. Steve F. said the Rhododendrons are over-taking the house so they will at a minimum have to be cut back substantially. He thought it would be best to start new. Steve showed members a 4 foot wall that exists that sends water under the breezeway. It is why they wanted to start over due to the water issue and what it has done.

Madge B. asked about the concrete wall along the apron. Steve F. said it could stay, it is in fine shape. It is not engineered and he had no issue with it staying if the board wanted it to stay. He isn’t partial one way or the other. He did not have a house plan yet and if it works with the house plan it could stay. He said if it has to come down he did not plan on engineering a new wall to replace it. He would rather slope the land than put up a new wall.

Steve F. noted the only expansion to date is the deck area. Roger A. asked what would be put in place when the driveway was removed? Steve said it was lawn there now, so he would probably have that and some shrubs.

CEO McDonough asked if Steve F. had a copy of his septic design? Steve F. stated it was in the CEO file. CEO McDonough said he should show the board the plan, as that was a requirement.

Ann H. asked if the new structure would be higher than the existing. Steve F. said no, noted that it couldn’t be. Roger A. asked if the Permit by Rule had been submitted? Steve said it had.

Roger A. asked for a time frame. Steve F. said November 1, 2018. Roger said the date was mostly for stabilization of the area.

Madge B. wanted to know why the board was not moving the house back? Ann H. thought the board was just looking at the existing location. Madge said the board needed to address the possibility of moving the structure back. Ann said the well was there now and it was an issue. Madge said a new house could be placed on one side of the well. There appeared to be enough room. She said the leachfield would not have to be moved. She wanted to know why the board was not considering it. Steve F. said he just didn’t want to get back into the existing hill. He asked CEO McDonough about the three foot rule? CEO McDonough said the rules have changed. Ann didn’t think the whole house could be moved back beyond the 100 foot mark. Madge wanted to know why not.

Madge B. showed the board where on the plan the house could be placed to make it entirely beyond the 100 foot mark. On paper it worked but if there was a reason it could not be moved the board needed to state the why. Ann H. asked if the concrete basement wasn’t being moved was that a reason or can the board ask them to move it. Madge said the board could ask them to move it. Steve F. said he was taking it out.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes ~ 12/26/17 Page 13 of 17

Madge B. did not see the hill as being that serious a hill. Ann H. said there was no reason the board could not push it back. Steve F. said currently he is at 472 feet, it is 8 feet higher behind the well and about 10 feet

higher at the tree line. Ann asked if there were any trees that would have to be removed? Steve said in the back are large pine trees and there are some saplings. He showed her where the tree line was located.

Roland L. asked where Madge B. was proposing it to be moved? She showed the members on the plan, it appeared it could be moved. She showed two choices. She still didn’t know why the house wasn’t being moved because the entire area will be disturbed during the project. Ann H. added that the goal is to move it away from the water. Madge said yes, the board is supposed to pick the best possible location as conforming as possible. She said if Steve has a problem when he tries to move it and he can’t, then he can come back to the board and tell the board why.

Roland L. asked about the distance requirement between the septic system and the structure. Steve F. said it is 20 feet to the leach field. Madge B. noted he was going to move the septic system anyway. Not the leachfield but the tank. Steve agreed. She said again he had room.

Ann H. asked Steve F. if he could see any reason for it not being moved. He stated that the only thing he didn’t know was what was on site for ledge. He said there was ledge between him and a neighbor but he did not know. Ann said it could be moved unless there was a reason why it can’t be. Madge B. said the only reason why presented at present is the elevation and she did not feel that was a good enough reason. She was not a builder but she said the board has made people move back unless the area would be seriously be disturbed. Madge said the area will be redone. Ann asked what Steve would have to do to determine if there was ledge or not? Steve said he would just need to do a few test pits.

Ann H. stated that if there is ledge it may not be able to go back as far as Madge is suggesting. Madge said that any amount would be better than not moving it at all. Steve F. asked if the board would be ok with them moving back and to the right in a spot that works for both the house and the board. He said he realized Madge did not think the house was a big deal but the problem is when they deal with the slope it changes stormwater issues. He felt it would create more runoff. Madge said if this can be stated as being an issue, then moving the house may not work. Ann asked if the DEP could make a statement about this? Roger A., Madge and CEO McDonough all stated this was not a DEP issue. Roger said it would be a Permit by Rule only. Roland felt it would be a challenge to fill in the hole and not aggravate the runoff issue. Ann said, “But we do not know for sure”. CEO McDonough stated, “A professional can give advice on this issue”.

Madge B. stated that the board needs sound reasons for not moving it. Roland L. thought by not bringing fill in to fill the existing hole. Ann H. did not feel the board was qualified to determine this. Steve F. said that he was not opposed to moving the house back and to the right. He said his reason for not moving it was he did not want to get into the slope, as soon as you leave the driveway it goes up into the hill. He said he could move over and back into this location (pointing to the plan) that works but getting back up into here (pointing at the plan) this is steeper than it appears.

Roger A. thought that keeping the area level, and once new loam and grass is brought in, the area will be stabilized. The swale currently catches a lot of the stormwater, so he thought taking out the pavement and putting in grass would work. Steve F. said again he did not mind moving over and back but not toward the hill. Roger showed members where water is collecting at this time and it caused the problem in the house now.

Steve F. stated he understood Mrs. Baldwin’s issue with the driveway.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes ~ 12/26/17 Page 14 of 17

Madge B. asked about the existing foundation. Steve F. showed her where it was and explained how it is at present. He said his intent is to work with the lot. He understood questioning the possibility of moving it back but he didn’t want to get it into the hill. Ann H. asked if he could check to see how far he could move it

back. Steve said if he goes back to the engineer he will look at the future plan first and then come back to the board.

Roger A. said he would prefer to have it stay in place based on the location of the daylight basement, where the existing slope is, and the existing runoff issue. Madge B. said she was not trying to be difficult but she needed the record to show why it isn’t being moved back because there is space on the lot. Roger agreed there was space but cutting into the hill that would have to be taken care of. He felt the building is in the wrong location to be pulled back. He stated he would not even want to pull it back eight feet.

Madge B. felt satisfied that the record was ok, there needed to be a reason. Steve F. asked if the board wanted it on the plan that the driveway will be removed. Members said he could write on the plan that it was being removed. He put a cross-hatch on the part of the driveway to be removed. Roger A. said the area can be put back to grass.

Ann H. said the board is saying the best possible location is where it is, with removing the pavement. Roger A. said, “Right.” Ann asked if the reason was topography? Madge said it was due to the topography and the concern with the runoff created if it was moved.

Roger A. stated the conditions of approval are as follows:

1) The plan was amended on December 26, 2017 by the applicant and accepted by the Planning Board. This amendment depicted the area where the pavement shall be removed from the property.

2) The area where the pavement is to be removed shall be revegetated with grass and plantings, as well as any other area disturbed by this project; this revegetation plan must be shown to the Code Enforcement Officer for approval.

3) 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.

4) The project including the replacement of the structure and revegetation shall be completed by November 1, 2018.

5) Per Shapleigh Zoning Ordinance §105-4, the approved plan shall be confirmed in writing by a licensed surveyor that the placement of the structure is correct per the specifications approved by the Planning board.

Madge B. moved for approval of the best possible location for the structure on Map 18, Lot 18, that being keeping it in the existing location based on the topography and concern with the runoff created if the foundation location was moved. Roland L. 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 owner of Shapleigh Tax Map 18, Lot 18 (5 1st Street), is Stephen Foglio, 182 Ross Corner Road, Shapleigh, ME 04076.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes ~ 12/26/17 Page 15 of 17

2. The property is located in the Shoreland District and according to the assessor contains 1.05 acres. The plan denotes it as being 1.26 acres in size.

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

4. Received was a plan for a proposed best practical location drafted by Joseph Stanley, PE #2453 of LinePro Land Surveying, LLC, dated November 14, 2017 which depicted the location of the existing structure to be replaced, a deck, two concrete walls, the paved driveway, existing septic location and well, as well as a utility easement. The existing structure has a side setback to the property line of Lot 19 of 24.2 feet, and a setback to the high water mark is marked as 51.2 feet. The 100 foot mark to the water was also on the plan. The existing structure is entirely within 100 feet of the high water mark.

5. The detailed description of the proposal is as follows: Tear down existing home and rebuild new.

6. The board reviewed Zoning Ordinance §105-4, ‘Nonconformance’, and concurred the application and information as presented met the standards applicable in this chapter. The board concurred the best possible location was to leave the structure in the existing location due to the topography and concern with the runoff to be created if the existing foundation location was changed.

7. A notice was mailed to all abutters within 500 feet of the property on December 14, 2017. Meetings were held on December 13, 2017, and December 26, 2017. Site inspection was done on an individual basis.

8. The Planning Board unanimously agreed to approve the Best Possible Location to replace the existing structure on Map 18, Lot 18, per the plan drafted by Joseph Stanley PLS #2453, dated November 14, 2017, entitled ‘Plan Showing a Site Plan Made for Stephen Foglio, Jr., 182 Ross Corner Road, Shapleigh, ME 04076 of Property Located on First Street in Shapleigh, Maine’ leaving it in the same location with six conditions. The plan depicted the side setback to Lot 19 as 24.2 feet at the closest point and 51.2 feet to the high water mark at the closest point.

9. The conditions of the approval are as follows:

1) The plan was amended on December 26, 2017 by the applicant and accepted by the Planning Board. This amendment depicted the area where the pavement shall be removed from the property.

2) The area where the pavement is to be removed shall be revegetated with grass and plantings, as well as any other area disturbed by this project; this revegetation plan must be shown to the Code Enforcement Officer for approval.

3) 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.

4) The project including the replacement of the structure and revegetation shall be completed by November 1, 2018.

5) Per Shapleigh Zoning Ordinance §105-4, the approved plan shall be confirmed in writing by a licensed surveyor that the placement of the structure is correct per the specifications approved by the Planning board.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes ~ 12/26/17 Page 16 of 17

Motion:

After careful consideration and a review of all material presented to the Board, including the review of Zoning Ordinance §105-4, ‘Nonconformance’, a motion was made to approve the Best Possible Location to replace the existing structure on Map 18, Lot 18, per the plan drafted by Joseph Stanley PLS #2453, dated November 14, 2017, showing the side setback to Lot 19 as 24.2 feet at the closest point and with a setback of 51.2 feet to the high water mark at the closest point, with five conditions.

Vote:

By a unanimous vote of 5 – 0, the motion to approve the Best Possible Location application to replace the existing structure on Map 18, Lot 18, per the plan drafted by Joseph Stanley PLS #2453, dated November 14, 2017, showing the side setback to Lot 19 as 24.2 feet at the closest point and with a setback of 51.2 feet to the high water mark at the closest point, with five conditions, was accepted.

Decision:

The Best Possible Location application to replace the existing structure on Map 18, Lot 18, per the plan drafted by Joseph Stanley PLS #2453, dated November 14, 2017, showing the side setback to Lot 19 as 24.2 feet at the closest point and with a setback of 51.2 feet to the high water mark at the closest point, with five conditions was approved.

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

OTHER:

Board member discussed several changes to the following two ordinances, based on the public hearing on December 13, 2017. They are as follows:

105-19: 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

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 one 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.

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

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes ~ 12/26/17 Page 17 of 17

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.

Board members will continue to discuss the proposed changes and another public hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 13, 2018.

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

Growth Permits

There are growth permits available.

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

The Planning Board meeting ended at 9:00 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, January 9, 2018 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