|February 28, 2018|
SHAPLEIGH PLANNING BOARD
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
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.
• 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 public hearing by stating the Planning Board was presenting several changes to the Zoning Ordinance and they will be presented at the March Town Meeting.
Roger A. read the first change as follows:
Proposed Amendment to §105-4.D(7)(b)[a]
[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 that the only change to this section was the addition of the last sentence. Roger asked if there were any questions? There were none.
Proposed Amendment to §105-15 ‘Definitions.’
Two-family dwelling - Any building that contains two dwelling units used, intended, or designed to be built or occupied for living purposes.
Amendment to a Definition:
Dwelling Unit. A single unit providing complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation. The term shall include manufactured housing units but shall not include trailers or recreational vehicles.
Page 1 of 14
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 2/13/18 Page 2 of 14
Roger A. asked if there were any questions?
Citizen – Why is the definition of two-family dwelling being added?
Madge B. & Roger A. – I think we should explain later in the review, when we talk about the change to two-family dwellings on one lot.
Proposed Addition to §105-17 ‘Land Uses’
RURAL RP SD GP FD SP
Agricultural, commercial CU CU YES YES CU
Seasonal sale of produce and
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.
Roger A. asked if there were any questions?
Citizen – What about hemp?
Roger A. – We are talking about marijuana, hemp is not being addressed.
Citizen – Then I feel you need to say something about that because you are singling out the term marijuana when most people can grow hemp which is literally the same.
Roger A. – The State of Maine gives us definitions with respect to marijuana and Shapleigh has voted on banning the retail sale of marijuana throughout the town.
Citizen – I know we voted on that but not on crops.
Roger A. – Crops would actually be a conditional use permit at this time but marijuana would not.
Proposed Amendment to §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%
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 2/13/18 Page 3 of 14
Roger A. stated the change here was an increase of lot coverage in the General Purpose District for Residential and Commercial from 10% to 20%.
Roger A. asked if there were any questions?
Citizen – Why are you doing this?
Roger A. – Businesses in town cannot expand if they are on a small lot, so they asked the Planning Board to consider the change. Roger noted that 10% lot coverage was a minimal coverage and increasing to 20% would not burden the town in any way. He mentioned an existing business in town that cannot expand at this time with respect to putting up storage due to the current limitations.
Citizen – Is it the same for a house lot?
CEO McDonough – It is all relative, the percentage of a lot is the percentage of a lot.
Roger A. – At this time only 10% can be a structure and the board wants to allow this coverage to be up to 20%. He noted that this is only in the General Purpose District, not in the Shoreland Zone.
Proposed Amendment to §105-19 ‘Notes to Table on Dimensional Requirements.’
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.
Roger A. stated the board felt as written, this section was confusing, as there was no good definition for ‘required yard space’ so the board opted to eliminate it and rewrite the section.
Roger A. asked if there were any questions? There were none.
Proposed Amendment to Ordinance – Add Section 105-40.2
§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 permit 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.
Roger A. stated this allowed a business to be able to be added to a residential lot that already has a home. Roger asked if there were any questions?
Citizen – So you are saying they can put a business on any residential lot anywhere?
Roger A. – In the General Purpose District.
Citizen – Where is the General Purpose District?
CEO McDonough – Most of the town. Anything that isn’t in the Shoreland District. And currently you can do this anyway but you have to make sure the lot is twice the size. Now we are saying if you have a
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 2/13/18 Page 4 of 14
conforming lot of 80,000 sf with 200 feet of road frontage you can have a home and business, you don’t have to have double the size.
Madge B. – With a permit.
CEO McDonough – Yes, with a permit.
Citizen – There are businesses now on a regular size lot. What can we do about that?
Madge B. – Not much, so with these changes we are trying to regulate what people are doing without permits.
Roger A. – Some of these businesses are grandfathered, so they are allowed to have the business on that lot and a residential unit.
Madge B. – Some people are running businesses without a permit and our hope is by changing the ordinance they will come for a permit because it will be allowed, and then the board can regulate it. We currently exempt Day Care from the existing lot size requirement.
Roger A. – Any home business where you are running the business inside the home, you can do that now.
Madge B. – Except for Real Estate offices.
Proposed Amendment to §105-42.A ‘Multifamily dwelling units.’
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.
Roger A. said this is why the definition (listed above) of two-family dwelling was added.
Madge B. stated there is a real need for families to have more of the family within a building at some point in their lives. People are putting two families in a single family and it is extremely hard to enforce because you have to actually go in and see the kitchen. The board’s hope is by making it legal, the board will be able to find out what is going on.
Citizen – What difference does it make? I took care of my Aunt and Uncle and it wasn’t a two-building house. If someone needs to be taken care of, they don’t need a whole house.
Madge B. – I agree with you but not everybody does, and so this way the code can be enforced.
Citizen – Does any of this include the shoreland property?
Roger A. – No.
Madge B. – Duplexes are allowed in the shoreland zone.
Roger A. – Provided they meet the size requirement.
Madge B. – They are allowed now on four acres, with 400 feet of road frontage.
Citizen – Is there a bigger acreage required on the shore?
CEO McDonough – That is going to remain four acres. The proposed change is only in the General Purpose District.
Citizen – What are we going to do to enforce those places where there are multiple families living in a single family unit.
Madge B. – We are not going to go back.
CEO McDonough – How are we going to prove it? I can tell you if a Real Estate agent comes in, or a bank comes in and they want to call it a two-family dwelling, that is not going to happen, because my file shows
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 2/13/18 Page 5 of 14
the septic system is for a single family dwelling. Therefore, that is the way it has to be marketed and sold. Someone would have to lie to sell it. But there is no good way Code Enforcement can prove you are using it as a two-family dwelling.
Citizen – What if the police have been there and they say there are multiple families?
CEO McDonough – It would be difficult to prove and there would have to be an extreme reason to go after this person, and it would be costly to prove it.
Citizen – What difference does this make to the town?
Roger A. – A duplex would pay more in taxes than a single family residence. Also, the more duplexes you have the more it costs the town because of multiple children. There are not enough taxes to pay for the kids.
Madge B. – You never pay enough taxes to pay for the children in a single family home or a duplex.
Roger A. agreed.
CEO McDonough – By regulating it, they have to have fire separation and egress. If they are doing it illegally, I cannot monitor that.
Proposed Amendment to Ordinance – Add §105-61.6
105.61.6 Retaining walls.
A. 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 that it currently isn’t in the ordinance, only in the building code. It puts language into the ordinance so applicants realize what is expected.
Citizen – I didn’t think you could put up a retaining wall?
CEO McDonough – Replacement walls.
Roger A – Yes, replacing an existing wall with a wall the same size. This way the applicant knows that they will need to show the board the replacement wall will be structurally sound.
Citizen – Do they need a permit to do that?
Roger A. – Yes, a DEP permit, as well as a Conditional Use Permit.
Roger A. stated those are the changes to be proposed at Town Meeting.
Roger A. asked if there were any additional questions? There were none.
The public hearing closed at 6:23 p.m.
The minutes from Tuesday, January 9, 2018 were accepted as read. (There was no meeting January 23rd.)
The planning board meeting started at 6:30 p.m.
Best Possible Location – Replace Structure – Map 34, Lot 24 (10 Cherry Road) – LinePro Land Surveying, Applicant; Arthur McEvoy III, Property Owner
Mr. Stanley was present for the review of the application, along with Mr. McEvoy.
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 2/13/18 Page 6 of 14
Provided to members along with the application, was a survey plan drafted by Joseph L. Stanley, PLS#2453, of LinePro Land Surveying, LLC. The plan depicted Map 34, Lot 24, the existing location of the structure, brick & concrete patio, wood steps, beach area, crushed stone area, 4 Spruce and 1 Maple tree, and approximate septic tank location. The plan also depicted the best practical location of the proposed structure. The existing structure at the closest point to the high water mark is 23.6’; the proposed structure is 40.3’ The existing structure at the closest point to centerline of Cherry Road is 77.1’; the proposed structure is 64.2’. The existing structure is 9 feet from the lot line of Map 34, Lot 23. The plan also notes that the disturbed area is to be stabilized and revegetated with Erosion Mulch and 4 Blueberry Bushes. The plan notes that currently the existing lot coverage by camp and patio is 8.1%. There is no change to this figure being proposed.
A Subsurface Wastewater Disposal System Application was provided, drafted by Wesley Bullard SE#122, dated 9/1/1988. The surveyed plan notes the possible location of a new septic system but no application was provided.
The detailed description of the project read as follows: Best Possible Location for a camp rebuild.
Roger A. asked Mr. Stanley to let the board know what he wanted to do. Mr. Stanley began by stating the lot they would be looking at was relatively flat. The existing structure is 23.6’ to the lake and after going to the site, he and Mr. McEvoy felt the best possible location was as depicted on the plan but Mr. Stanley said the applicant is open to suggestions. The proposed new location moves the structure back from the lake 17’ and it will be 64.2’ from the centerline of the road.
Mr. Stanley stated that the two closest trees were on the plan but there should be no impact to them by this project. He noted that the plan states that revegetation of the disturbed area would be done with erosion control mulch and blueberry bushes.
Roger A. asked what the yellow area on the plan depicted? Mr. Stanley stated that it was a sandy beach area that is in existence. He stated this area goes from beach to undergrowth.
Roger A. asked if the crushed stone would be moved back, along with the structure? Mr. McEvoy stated the crushed stone was put into place to slow down the rainwater runoff toward the lake. He said that he could move some of it and revegetate if the board wanted but noted the crushed stone was working well.
CEO McDonough asked if there would be any tree removal? Mr. Stanley said, “No.” Roger A. asked if the DEP Permit by Rule had been submitted? Mr. Stanley stated that it had not, because they wanted to see if the board was comfortable with the plans before they submitted it. He thought that after the site visit, then they would submit to DEP, when they knew what the board thought of the location.
Madge B. asked about the location of the septic system? Mr. Stanley stated that the existing is on the plan but it may be moved, depending on what the board decides. He said they would then have a new design drafted. Mr. McEvoy stated he was willing to put in a new system and move the structure back. He said the existing was put in in 1988 and it probably should be updated, although there have been no issues to date.
CEO McDonough wanted to know why they were not moving the structure back further? Mr. Stanley stated that it was due to the road setback but said again that the applicant would be willing to move the structure to any location the board felt appropriate. Mr. McEvoy stated that the 75’ road setback was one concern when they were deciding upon a best location. Mr. Stanley stated that they just took the existing footprint and moved it to what appeared to be a location that would work best.
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 2/13/18 Page 7 of 14
The board asked how old the camp was? Mr. McEvoy thought it was originally built in the 1930’s and was a caretakers’ quarters at one time.
Roger A stated a site inspection would be scheduled and a notice to abutters mailed. The site inspection was scheduled for Sunday, February 24th at 9:00 a.m.
Nothing further was discussed.
Conditional Use Permit – Earth Moving in the Shoreland District & Dam Repair – Map 14, Lot 16 (177 Emery Mills Road) – City of Sanford Maine, Steven Buck, Applicant; John Gallant, Property Owner
Mr. Buck was present for the review of the application. Note: The tape recorder was not working properly so there will be no direct quotes for this review.
Along with the application, members received the following information: Activity Description / Site Description and Proposed Dam Repairs, drafted by GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Also received was an Erosion Control Plan, also drafted by GZA GeoEnvironmental. The board received photographs of the existing site, Locus Plan, a pictorial of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan and what is called a ‘Side View Plan’ of the work to be done showing the construction entrance, and cross section at the lake.
Roger A. began by asking Mr. Buck if they were obtaining a right-of-way easement from Mr. Gallant? Mr. Buck stated that they were and a land swap also had taken place, deeding Mr. Gallant a strip of land at the water’s edge. Mr. Buck stated on the last page of the plan you could see the deeded peninsula that was in exchange for the permanent right-of-way.
CEO McDonough asked what the amount of land was that was deeded to Mr. Gallant? Mr. Buck did not have a copy of the deed with him but stated he could provide this information for the board, along with a copy of the easement. Mr. Buck stated that Corner Post Land Surveyor’s gave a copy of the information to the City of Sanford’s Attorney to be certain the land swap and easement were handled properly. CEO McDonough stated that the board would need a copy of both the deed and easement for the record, to know exactly what is being conveyed. Roger A. agreed.
Mrs. Small asked where the brook was in relation to this project? Mr. Buck stated the wetlands were all mapped out and a copy was provided to the board. Roger A. asked why they did not come in from Deering Ridge Road? Mr. Buck stated that they considered doing that but due to stream protection on one side it was not feasible and they also could not get an excavator in from that location for what needed to be done.
Roger A. asked exactly what the right-of-way would be used for? Mr. Buck stated it would be for the construction and maintenance of the dam only. He expected this right-of-way to be used a very limited amount of time. He noted that Acton / Shapleigh / Sanford oversees the dam and that a coalition was formed and meets to be certain the dam is maintained and monitored. It is imperative this dam does not fail, as there are six homes that would be affected should the dam fail. He spoke of emergency plans that were enacted every year in case of a catastrophe, such as a complete failure. That is why they are doing the needed repairs to prevent such a catastrophe.
Mr. Buck described the existing site to the board using much of the site description written by GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc. Their Site Description, in part, is as follows:
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 2/13/18 Page 8 of 14
Emery Mills Dam is located off the west side of Deering Ridge Road near its intersection with Emery Mills Road. The dam is owned by the City of Sanford and impounds Mousam Lake at its southwest end. The Emery Mills Dam was constructed in 1889 and consists of an earth embankment with a stone masonry wall along the downstream side. The total length of the dam (including the spillway) is approximately 230 feet with a top width ranging from approximately five feet at the abutments to approximately 15 feet at the gatehouse. The overall height of the dam is 29 feet, with a hydraulic height of 25 feet. An approximately 60 foot long, multi-level, broad-crested spillway weir is located near the right abutment. The lower spillway invert is constructed from stone masonry, while the upper invert is capped with reinforced concrete. The spillway section of the dam appears to be founded on bedrock.
The outlet works consist of twin 30 inch diameter low-level outlets controlled by twin 48-inch square slide gates. Flow from the gates is conveyed through a presumed 30 foot long stone masonry culvert to a stone-lined channel downstream. Flows from the spillway travel over exposed bedrock and large boulders, and intersect the discharge channel approximately 40 feet downstream of the dam. Outflow from the gates is periodically adjusted to provide a minimum required flow to the wastewater treatment plant operated by the City of Sanford approximately 10 miles downstream of the dam. Based on the Title 37-B MRSA, Chapter 24 “Dam safety” the Maine Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) has classified Emery Mills dam as a “high” hazard dam.
Mr. Buck spoke about the project, that they would be removing brush and roots, and adding new rip rap to adjust the slope. He noted they looked at whether or not there has been any actual movement of the dam, and to date there has not been.
The proposed Dam Repairs, written by GZA, are as follows:
• Improve the existing footpath between 177 Emery Mills Road and the Dam to serve as a construction and emergency vehicle access road with a vehicle turn-around area. The existing footpath is approximately 5 feet wide and 300 feet long. The proposed access road has a maximum base width of 12 feet and will be approximately 520 feet long. The closest point of disturbance for the access road is estimated to be approximately 18 feet from the ordinary high water mark at Mousam Lake as mapped by GZA in June 2017.
• Reinforce the top of the existing sluiceway roof (approximately 20 feet wide by 10 feet long) as necessary to facilitate construction and stabilize the structure. Stabilization will be completed from the side and roof of the sluiceway (no in-water work is proposed) and will match existing conditions to the extent practicable. Materials will include concrete, fieldstone, and/or rebar as needed.
• Install a berm on the eastern side and reinforce the existing concrete spillway on the western side of the Dam to support the Dam from the downstream side. The proposed disturbance will be within the 250-foot shoreland zone buffer for Mousam Lake and within the 100-foot stream protection buffer for the Mousam River and is approximately 19 feet wide by 146 feet long. The downstream temporary work area abuts the fieldstone wall that contains the Mousam River at the Dam outlet and is approximately 19 feet wide by 75 feet long. Limited permeation grouting may be undertaken within the earth embankment as part of this task. No in-water work is proposed on the downstream side of the Dam.
• Install a toe drain within the berm and the concrete spillway (southwest side). The toe drain pipe will discharge into the existing stone-lined sluiceway channel via a weirbox.
• Remove overgrown vegetation and penetrating roots from the upstream (northwestern) abutment, and replace the abutment riprap to restore the previously constructed 2 ½:1 slope. The approximate volume of riprap that will be replaced or regraded is approximately 33 cubic yards over an approximately 12 foot wide by 75 foot long footprint on the upstream side of the dam. This work is proposed to be completed during the winter drawdown period to facilitate access to the riprap abutment.
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 2/13/18 Page 9 of 14
Mr. Buck stated that both the MDEP and the Army Corps of Engineers are reviewing the project with respect to the access road construction; berm and toe drain placement; and riprap placement. And he noted that Best Management Practices will be put into place the entire duration of the project. At present it did not appear any more than five trees would be cut, these were scattered along the existing footpath. Mr. Buck stated there was an issue with a brown long eared bat that existed, so they would not be allowed to cut the trees during the mating season. This was the only issue with respect to wildlife on site. Board members wanted Mr. Buck to realize that if the trees are cut within 100 feet of the high water mark they would have to be replaced. The new trees can be no further back from the high water mark than the existing and must be a minimum of six feet in height.
Mr. Buck stated that the existing footpath would be improved to prevent runoff from going into Mousam Lake. The erosion and sedimentation control plan states that they would be using appropriate seed mix as required. Members noted the existing footpath had been in existence for many years and was used by boaters to access the store known as Emery Mills Market, currently known as One Earth Natural Food Store. Boats would tie up at a dock that was only recently removed, and walk up to the store. CEO McDonough wanted to know if anyone had access or a right to the footpath currently? Mr. Buck was not aware of any one having a deeded right to it.
Mr. Buck stated that the footpath would be used for emergency and re-construction of the dam only. The board asked if there would be a gate at the entrance? Mr. Buck did not believe there would be unless Mr. Gallant wanted one. The erosion and sedimentation control plan drafted by GZA states that the permanent access road is proposed to follow the general alignment of the current footpath, however, it will be graded to direct surface flow away from Mousam Lake and toward a vegetated area adjacent to the dam. A cross section was provided to members known as Figure 3.
Mr. Buck stated that they had obtained a 5 year loan for $100,000 at 0% interest to be used for the project. The board asked when they planned on starting the project? Mr. Buck stated they were just waiting for the DEP review to be concluded. He believed the bat mating season will be over by the time they want to begin the project.
The board members reviewed the stormwater plan presented. Mr. Buck noted that currently the water runs from the footpath into the lake, whereas when the project is completed the water will be diverted from the lake.
Madge B. asked if the easement restricts the use of the right-of-way? CEO McDonough stated that the board can require a restriction as a condition of the permit. Mr. Buck did not have a copy of the easement but stated he would get a copy for the board, along with a copy of the deed transferring land to Mr. Gallant. Mr. Buck stated the easement was to the City of Sanford, into, on and over part of Mr. Gallant’s land for the maintenance and access for repair of the dam. The City of Sanford will be the ones who maintain the right-of-way.
Roger A. asked if they got a DOT permit for access? Mr. Buck stated that they did not because the entrance already exists and he did not believe there would be an issue as the entrance can meet the minimum site distances in both directions and the access road will have minimum use. CEO McDonough agreed that he did not believe DOT would have an issue, because they did not have an issue with the nearby public boat ramp and that had much more use than this right-of-way will.
Roger A. asked if the ROW would be plowed in the winter? Mr. Buck stated that it would not. Roger asked if it would be constructed based on the weight of the vehicles that would be using it? Mr. Buck stated that it would and that it would be a working driveway. Ann H. asked how much gravel and fill would be required?
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 2/13/18 Page 10 of 14
Mr. Buck stated that it would be 12 feet in width x 520 feet long, having 6” of gravel. Roger A. was concerned with the size of the turnaround depicted at the dam. He did not believe a 20’ x 20’ turnaround would be sufficient for a dump truck. CEO McDonough stated that this would not be subject to a road standard because it is an easement. Roger stated that he understood but large vehicles would have to get down there and be able to turn around. Roger also noted an ambulance could not turn around. Madge B. stated that an ambulance could not turn around in her driveway either, she did not feel that the board could use that as a measure here. Roger did not agree, as the board needs to be mindful of the community. Nancy Small noted there was a drowning at this dam and an ambulance was not there. Madge thought it would be easy to get into the dam from the south side.
Roger A. asked Mr. Buck if he stated that he would have the review back from the MDEP by April 24th? Mr. Buck stated that was correct. Roger A. stated the board would table the meeting until the first meeting in May based on this, May 8th.
Mr. Buck stated that the board wanted a copy of the Deed to Mr. Gallant, a copy of the Easement from Mr. Gallant and the turnaround needed to be widened. Roger A. stated that was correct.
Steve F. thought the board might want DOT approval in case a dump truck pulls out onto Rte. 109 and something happens, he did not want the Town to be liable. Mr. Buck stated that he would get the DOT to sign off on this ROW entrance.
Madge B. stated that the board would like to know the quantity of materials to be used to construct the driveway. Mr. Buck stated that he would get the information.
Madge B. noted again that trees to be removed had to be replaced 1 to 1, 6 feet in height and no further from the water if they are within 100 feet of the water. Also that the replacement trees need to be native to the area.
Roger A. moved to table the meeting to May 8, 2018, pending further information. Madge B. 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. By a unanimous vote of 5 – 0 the board approved the motion to table the next review until May 8, 2018.
Nothing more was discussed.
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 preliminary 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
Location of Property: YCRD Book 16904, Page 325
Shapleigh Tax Map 9, Part of Lot 1A
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
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 2/13/18 Page 11 of 14
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
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
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.
This evening Mr. Stanley presented the board members with a formal application package which included a copy of the Warranty Deed showing James R. Chadbourne granting Warranty Covenants to Hidden Cove, LLC, Book 17652 Page 641; a copy of a sample deed for a lot in Hidden Cove; Requested Waivers (will be listed below); a copy of the soils map for the 3 lots, along with explanation of the soils; the lots located on a copy of the USGS map; a Stormwater Narrative which evaluated a 24 hour duration for a 2-year, 10-year and 25-year storm event; and a copy of the site plan for boundary retracements of property owned by James R. Chadbourne, located on Red Gate Road, Town Farm Road & Apple Road.
Also provided was a survey plan showing Hidden Cove, A Proposed Minor Subdivision by Hidden Cove, LLC, 173 Butternut Trail, Wells, Maine 04090 of Property Location on Apple Road & West Shore Drive, Shown on Tax Map 9, Lot 1A, Shapleigh Maine, dated February 2, 2018, drafted by Joseph L. Stanley PLS#2453, of LinePro Land Surveyors, LLC. The plan depicts 3 lots; Lot #1 being 2.00 Acres, Lot #2 being 3.94 Acres (2.39 Acres Net), Lot #3 being 2.62 Acres in size. Shown on the plan were a total of 4 Test Pits; Abutter Lines; Overhead Utility Lines; On the Ground Topo Contour Lines 2’ Intervals; LIDAR Contours per Maine Office of G.I.S. – 2’ Intervals; Shoreland Zone lines: Building Setback Lines.
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 2/13/18 Page 12 of 14
Detailed plans were provided for the construction of the West Shore Drive Private Way, revised through 2-1-18, engineered by Craig A. Burgess PE#12638 of SEBAGO Technics. The plan depicted the actual construction of the Private Way, as well as erosion control measures.
Waivers requested for the project include:
Section 89-30A – Stone Monuments – Capped Survey Irons are proposed to be set at all property corners.
Section 89-30C – Fire Pond / Dry Hydrants – Due to project location near Square Pond, Individual Home Sprinkler Systems are proposed for fire suppression.
Section 89-36M – Sidewalks – No sidewalks are proposed because the project does not fall within an Urban Compact Zone.
Section 89-36I & 89-37A – Paving of Private Way – No pavement is currently proposed on the surface of the proposed Private Way. (Letter of explanation was provided by Joseph Stanley, dated February 2, 2018.)
Mr. Stanley stated the applicant was before the board to create a 3-lot subdivision on approximately 8+ acres. There would be one lot at the end of Apple Road and two lots accessed from West Shore Drive, coming in from Acton. Mr. Stanley showed the board the new drafted plan which had minor changes from the original preliminary sketch plan.
Mrs. Small wanted to know where the access would be for the property on Apple Road? Mr. Stanley stated that they did not know at this time but showed her where the building envelope was situated for Lot #3 which abutted Apple Road. Mrs. Small wanted to know if this lot was near her home. Mr. Stanley who surveyed not only this property but several others on the street was sure her property was not directly next to these lots. It appeared Mrs. Small’s lot was several hundred feet beyond the lots lines of Lot #1. Mr. Stanley stated that there were some flags on the property that she may be able to see to help her better understand the location. He also added that there would be a public hearing that she was welcome to attend.
Mrs. Small was concerned with the lots being accessed from West Shore Drive in Acton, with respect to Rescue or Fire. It was a long way around to access these lots. Mr. Stanley stated that was one of the reasons the houses would have in-home sprinkler systems installed.
Mrs. Small asked where the brook was located on the property? Mr. Stanley delineated it on the plan he provided. He also showed the building envelope setbacks that were created in part because of the stream protection area.
Roland L. asked if there would be access from Apple Road to West Road through the lots? Mr. Stanley stated there would not, they did not want to cross the brook on site. He stated only 2 lots would use West Shore Drive.
Roger A. asked about the CMP (electric) utility easement on the property. Where was it located? Mr. Stanley stated that there were some old descriptions but they would be meeting with the utility company because they were trying to see if any of the overhead power could be moved to underground.
Roger A. noted that on the Private Way Plan, Item #17, it mentions the towns of Kennebunk and Kennebunkport, this needed to be changed. Mr. Stanley said he would have this addressed.
Mrs. Small wanted to know how close this was to the cove? Mr. Stanley stated that the property abuts the cove but there could be no building within 100 feet of the property line due to shoreland zoning guidelines. He showed Mrs. Small the building setbacks on the plan.
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 2/13/18 Page 13 of 14
CEO McDonough wanted to know how the water / lot frontage was calculated on the middle lot? Mr. Stanley stated it ran along the shore. CEO McDonough pointed out it had to be in a straight line according to the ordinance; §105-19.C Shore frontage. A lot abutting a lake, pond, river, stream or wetland shall have a minimum shore frontage as specified in the table in §105-18, measured in a straight line between the points of intersection of the side lot lines with the shoreline at the normal high-water line or upland edge. Mr. Stanley stated that he would modify the plan.
Mrs. Small asked how deep the water in the cove was? Mr. Stanley and Madge B. both noted it was a very shallow cove. Neither believed a motorized boat of any size would be able to be placed in this location.
Mrs. Small asked about the other right-of-ways Mr. Chadbourne had from his property. Would these lots be able to use them? Mr. Stanley stated that they would not. Their only access was directly from the lots themselves.
Mr. Stanley wanted to address Roger’s concern with the turnaround on the private way. Roger A. had believed the turnaround should be bigger than what had been presented on the plan due to how the terrain drops off, or that a support wall would have to be created. Mr. Stanley asked Roger to look at the actual pin locations. He stated that the proposed 16’ wide travel way, and 24’ wide x 24’ turnaround should be more than adequate for the area proposed. He added that there would be a 3 to 1 slope tapered to the existing grade.
Mr. Stanley asked Roger to review the road design, believing the design stops before the steep part Roger was concerned about. Mr. Stanley said after review of the design, if the board was still concerned, they could put something up to help support the embankment. Mr. Stanley noted that if the road and turnaround were extended further, then he would agree with Roger’s assessment that more would be needed to support the area.
Madge B. stated she was looking at the checklist and it states that all buildings have to be one foot above base flood elevation. She wanted to know if that had to be depicted on the plan? Mr. Stanley stated that he did not believe so because they were not in the flood zone and he also noted that there was no flood zones associated with Square Pond.
Mrs. Small wanted to know if there was access to the lake from Lot #3? Mr. Stanley stated that there was access to the cove but not to any other ROW on Square Pond.
Madge B. asked if the board had to make sure they had financial capacity to do the required improvements? Roger A. stated that yes, the board would require a bond or money to be held by the Town. Mr. Stanley stated that they still had to figure out what was going to be done with respect to electricity. Steve F. stated that the bond would be for the power and the road. Roger said, right.
Roger A. asked if the driveway was going to be paved or not? Mr. Stanley stated that in one chart in the subdivision ordinance it shows a minimum of 12” of pavement is required, §89-36.I, but in the next chart §89-37.A, it does not, it only requires a compacted gravel travel way of a certain thickness. Then when you look at a private way requirement in the zoning ordinance, pavement is not required. Mr. Stanley believed the intention was not to require pavement. Madge B. thought it would not be a good idea to require an impervious surface in this location. Roger stated his concern was to be sure the road quality was maintained for emergency vehicles, and he also had a concern with the slope and turnaround. He felt if it was paved the area would be more stable. He didn’t want the road to be all pot holes and washed out. Roger stated that under §89-36 the board could require pavement. Mr. Stanley agreed but then on the next page, no pavement is required (89-37.A).
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 2/13/18 Page 14 of 14
Steve F. asked if Acton was going to make them pave the end of West Shore Drive? Mr. Stanley stated that Acton was still considering what they wanted to do, whether or not they would require them to meet a road standard then it would need to be paved, or a private way standard, where it would not.
Roger A. stated that he believed that because the private way was being used for road frontage the board could require it to be paved.
Roger A. asked if there were any additional questions? There were none.
Roger A. stated that at this time the board needed to know what would be done with respect to CMP (utility); several members did not receive a copy of the Test Pits so those needed to be provided; and the board would need to know what Acton was going to require with respect to West Shore Drive in order to decide what should be done with the private way. Roger also noted the shore frontage on Lot #2 had to be change to meet the requirements in the ordinance.
Roger A. stated the board could hold a public hearing at the next meeting on this project if Mr. Stanley believed he would be ready. Mr. Stanley thought he would have additional information and would be prepared. The public hearing will be scheduled for 6 p.m. on Tuesday, February 27th. A notice to abutter will be mailed as well.
Nothing further was discussed.
Madge B. asked if a notice could be put in the Smart Shopper regarding the proposed ordinance changes, as well as on the town’s website. Madge provided the wording for the notice that provided some clarity for townspeople about the changes. Barbara F. stated that she would have it done by the end of the week.
Map 1, Lot 4 (299 Deering Ridge Road) – Multifamily GP# 01-18
Board members reviewed the lot and it contained 141 acres and over 1000 feet of road frontage, therefore, the requirements in the ordinance for land requirements for multifamily structures could be met.
The Planning Board meeting ended at 8:48 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 8:30 p.m.
The next meeting will be held Tuesday, February 27, 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.
Land Use Secretary email@example.com
March 22, 2018 10:00 AM