April 27, 2018  4:21 AM 
April 10, 2018
Other Notices
April 25, 2018
April 20, 2018
April 13, 2018
April 06, 2018
March 23, 2018
March 21, 2018
March 09, 2018

SHAPLEIGH PLANNING BOARD

MINUTES

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

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

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

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 19, Lot 13 (63 Emery Mills Road) – Sharon Tombarelli, Applicant; Roger Berube, Property Owner

Mrs. Tombarelli and Roger Berube were present for the public hearing. Mr. Tombarelli was also in attendance.

Roger opened the public hearing by asking Mrs. Tombarelli what she wanted to do? Mrs. Tombarelli stated she wanted to do the same thing that was approved at another location, selling furniture, home décor and gifts. She was only moving to a new location. (Original approval was for Map 7, Lot 3-2.)

Roger A. asked what the hours of operation would be? Mrs. Tombarelli stated they would be the same as the prior location. Tuesday thru Sunday, 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Barbara F. noted that she was approved for 9 to 7, 7 days a week. The board reminded her that she did not have to be open 7 days but this would give her the option if she chose to. She agreed 7 days would be a good idea.

Madge B. asked if any additional outdoor lighting would be added? Mr. Tombarelli stated that they were not making any changes. Mr. Berube agreed. Mrs. Tombarelli said there was one light on the outside of the building facing the road. Madge stated that it was important there was no glare directed toward the neighbors or the road. Mr. Berube said he understood.

Roger A. asked if there were any other questions? Roland L. asked about the fenced in play area for the day care, is the fence coming down? Mr. Berube stated that it was gone.

Roger A. asked if they were still going to have outdoor furniture? Mrs. Tombarelli said she would be having some. She did not plan on having a lot but wanted the ability to have a small display area, as they mentioned during the last application process. It would be the poly resin furniture, a few chairs, and a small display. Mr. Tombarelli stated that it would be brought in at night. Madge B. asked if the board limited the area? Roger stated that they limited them to 200 square feet of display area at any one time. Mr. Tombarelli asked if this would be a good size in this location? Mr. Berube stated there was plenty of room. Mrs. Tombarelli thought outdoor furniture would be of interest but she wasn’t sure. Steve F. thought because of the location they could increase that area if they wanted to. Mr. Berube asked if they could have 400 sf? The board had no issue with increasing the size. CEO McDonough had no issue, as long as they didn’t place it in the parking area. Mrs. Tombarelli stated there was a grass area they would be using.

Roland L. asked if there was a parking plan? Barbara F. stated they had a parking plan on file from previous approvals. Nothing has changed on site. She showed the plan to the board, noting the parking area was approved as adequate for the size of building and number of businesses.

Page 1 of 11

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 3-14-18 Page 2 of 11

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

The public hearing closed at 6:12 p.m.

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

The minutes from Tuesday, February 27, 2018 were accepted as read.

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

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

Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit – Business Selling Furniture & Home Décor – Map 19, Lot 13 (63 Emery Mills Road) – Sharon Tombarelli, Applicant; Roger Berube, Property Owner

Mrs. Tombarelli and Roger Berube were present for the review of the application. Mr. Tombarelli was also in attendance.

Mrs. Tombarelli provided a sketch of the area inside the building she would be using for the business. It depicted a bathroom, kitchen area, storage area, 3 rooms along the perimeter, as well as an open interior area, and 4 locations to exit or enter the building. The area depicted as Front Exit will be used for customers.

The detailed description of the proposal is as follows: New tenant is looking to rent existing office space, as is, for retail sales of furniture and goods.

Mrs. Tombarelli had been approved on December 26, 2018 for this business at a different location (Map 7, Lot 3-2, 926 Shapleigh Corner Road). The only change to her original request is location. Mrs. Tombarelli’s business is the sale of rustic furniture, home décor and gifts.

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 location for the approved 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. There is an existing light on the building at this time.

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.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 3-14-18 Page 3 of 11

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.

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 109. 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 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, the Comp Plan wants businesses along Route 109.

4) Traffic access to the site is safe. Roger A. stated it is, the site distances meet the minimum in both directions.

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 a State approved Septic System is on site, and any solid waste will be removed by the applicants.

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.

8) A stormwater drainage system capable of handling fifty-year storm without adverse impact on adjacent properties has been designed. Roger A. stated a stormwater management plan was designed and approved for a previous application for this property, no changes are being made to the outside of the structure or parking area.

9) Adequate provisions to control soil erosion and sedimentation have been made. Roger A. stated no changes are being made on site to create an erosion issue.

10) There is adequate water supply to meet the demands of the proposed use and for fire protection purposes. Roger A. stated this location is not far from the Emery Mills fire hydrant. Mr. Berube added that areas in the building also have a sprinkler system, such as where the furnace is located.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 3-14-18 Page 4 of 11

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 are no changes being made to the existing vegetation.

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

Roger stated the conditions of approval are as follows:

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

2) A maximum of 400 square feet shall be used to display outdoor furniture. This furniture is to be taken inside at the close of business in the evening and at no time shall it be displayed/placed in the parking area.

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 19, Lot 13, with three conditions. Roland L. 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. By a vote of 4 – 0, the motion passed unanimously.

Roger A. stated that the approved Day Care Facility for this location is no longer an allowed use.

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 19, Lot 13 (63 Emery Mills Road), is Roger Berube, mailing address of P.O. Box 14, Springvale, Maine 04083.

3. The property is located in the General Purpose District and according to the assessor, the property contains 3 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 picture of the existing structure that the business will be going in to. Also received was a diagram of the area in the building to be used for the business. It depicted a bathroom, kitchen area, storage area, 3 rooms along the perimeter, as well as an open interior area and 4 locations to exit or enter the building. The area depicted as Front Exit will be used for customers.

6. The detailed description of the proposal is as follows: New tenant is looking to rent existing office space as is for retail sales of furniture and goods.

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

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 3-14-18 Page 5 of 11

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 February 28, 2018. Meetings were held on February 27, 2018 and March 14, 2018. 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 19, Lot 13, 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) A maximum of 400 square feet shall be used to display outdoor furniture. This furniture is to be taken inside at the close of business in the evening and at no time shall it be displayed/placed in the parking area.

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

Motion:

After careful consideration and a review of all material presented to the Board, including the review of the Zoning Ordinances ‘Basic Performance Standards’, and §105-73, Section G, ‘Standards applicable to conditional uses’ a motion was made on Wednesday, March 14, 2018, to approve the amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for a furniture and home décor business, to be located on Map 19, Lot 13, per the plans provided, with three conditions.

Vote:

By a unanimous vote of 4 – 0, the motion to approve the amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for a furniture and home décor business, to be located on Map 19, Lot 13, per the plans provided, with three conditions, was accepted.

Decision:

The Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for a furniture and home décor business, to be located on Map 19, Lot 13, per the plans provided, with three conditions was approved.

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

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

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

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

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

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 3-14-18 Page 6 of 11

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

Land Information:

Location of Property: YCRD Book 16904, Page 325

Shapleigh Tax Map 9, Part of Lot 1A

Current Zoning: General Purpose

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

Acreage to be

Developed: 9 Acres

Property is not part of a prior subdivision.

There have been no divisions within 5 years.

Existing Use: Wood Lot

The parcel does include a waterbody.

The parcel is not within a special flood hazard area.

Proposed Name of

Development: Hidden Cove

Number of Lots: (3) Three

Date of Construction: Fall of 2018

Date of Completion: Fall of 2019

Infrastructure

Required: No

The property currently has road access.

Estimated Cost of

Improvements: $25,000 – Private Way

Method of Water

Supply: Individual Wells

Method of Sewer

Disposal: Individual Septic Systems

Method of Fire

Protection: Possibly Sprinklers, not certain at this time.

There are no Proposed: Streets

Recreation Areas

Common Land

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

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

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

On February 13, 2018, 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.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 3-14-18 Page 7 of 11

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.

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.)

Roger A. opened the discussion asking Mr. Stanley what new information he had for the board? Mr. Stanley stated that he was before the board this evening in order to get a decision regarding the surface of the private way, gravel vs pavement. He said he thought he was close to a final version of the plan once the road surface issue was decided upon.

Mr. Stanley stated that after the last meeting he spoke with Craig Burgess (Professional Engineer from Sebago Technics, who engineered the existing private way plan) about his experience of gravel vs pavement. Mr. Stanley said he hadn’t looked at the plan as he should have, what Mr. Burgess had proposed was what his company felt was the happy medium, which is reclaimed asphalt compacted. He said it provides stability like pavement but also allows for slower water flow across the surface. He stated that this is what is currently proposed by the engineer as the best travel way in this situation.

Mr. Burgess provided a memo regarding the Private Way plan. This memo reads in part as follows:

The private way was designed and will be constructed and maintained in general conformance with the Gravel Road Maintenance Manual, A guide for Landowners on Camp and Other Gravel Roads, published jointly by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the Kennebec County Soil and Water Conservation District, April 2016. Construction of gravel camp roads immediately adjacent to lake watershed is common practice in Maine. The ability to reduce runoff velocity, limit sediment transport, control erosion, and ensure proper maintenance of the gravel private way will be imperative to its overall impact on the lake. Similar rules would also apply to a paved roadway.

A primary concern with gravel surfacing is sediment transport, which will be addressed in the proposed design by directing all runoff from the roadway to a level spreader. The level spreader will serve as a localized low spot to collect any potential gravel and wash-out from the roadway. Additionally, reclaimed asphalt is specified in lieu of standard gravel surface course to achieve better compaction and service life, and also reducing the potential of surface rutting and erosion. Gravel also allows for some attenuation and infiltration back into the ground and has reduced thermal impact in comparison to pavement.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 3-14-18 Page 8 of 11

Mr. Stanley stated the details for the roadway was from a design and similar soils used for a project in Kennebec County. He said he was open for discussion but if he could get an opinion about this, he would come up with a final plan prior to the next meeting. He feels that most matters have been addressed. He said he still had to speak with Road Commissioner John Burnell with respect to what he wanted for a turnaround area off of Apple Road.

Roland L. asked Mr. Stanley to show him on the plan where the reclaimed asphalt was going. He also asked what would be used from the private way up to the actual homes. Mr. Stanley said, “That would be up to the owner.” He said, “At this point we are proposing 3 inches of reclaimed asphalt on top of the road surface.” Roland wanted the board to know that they put reclaimed asphalt on his road and it was the best decision they could have made. It has been down about 7 years; before he was hauling fines that ran down the hill. He said that has been almost totally eliminated by the reclaimed asphalt. And he added that it looks more like a dirt road and the more you drive on it the harder it gets. Steve F. asked about the dust. Roland said it wasn’t very dusty at all.

Roger A. stated that on the roadway it shows 16 feet in width. Mr. Stanley said, “Yes, that is what we need for the two lots and then it widens out to 24 up here for the turn-around for emergency vehicles.” Roger said, “A private right-of-way is 12 feet plus 3 foot shoulders on each side, for a total of 18 feet in total”. Mr. Stanley took a look at the details for the roadway. He stated, “The road shows a 16 foot wide travel way and 2 foot shoulders on each side before you get to the drainage”. He pointed members to Sheet #4.

Roger A. stated that the ordinance specifies three foot shoulders. Steve F. asked about the road width? Roger said, “12, which is fine. Because he is looking at 20 feet vs the 18 feet.” Roger and Steve both felt the proposal was better than what the ordinance asked for. Madge B. agreed. The town requires 18 and they are proposing 20.

Board members continued to review the road plan. Roland L. said the biggest issue with collection areas is people never remove the leaves and then they no longer function as originally created to do. Mr. Stanley said in this area it is mostly pine needles but he didn’t know if this was better or worse.

Roger A. didn’t believe there were any other issues with the road. Members agreed.

Madge B. moved to accept the private way plan drafted by Craig Burgess PE#12638, as proposed. Steve F. 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. By a vote of 4 – 0, the motion passed unanimously.

Roland L. stated that when he was reading some of the concerns of citizens at a prior meeting regarding low water depth in the cove, and the fact the board has to answer the question in the ordinance that there will be no negative impact on aquatic life, wildlife, etc., he wondered if there had been any thought on how to mitigate that. (§105-73.G(1) states: The use will not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, bird or other wildlife habitat.)

Madge B. asked how the development was adversely affecting? Roland said, “I am not thinking about that, let’s assume they are boat owners and so they have docks down there.” Madge said, “Gotcha.” Roland said, “We are talking about….usually people on Square will have larger size boats coming in and out of that area, chopping up weeds and degrading the wildlife habitat. I am not saying they will, but. I am bringing it up in anticipation of that question being raised when the conditions are read.”

Mr. Stanley stated that they had not thought about a restriction. He personally did not have a lot of experience with the depth in this location, or how they would get to their docks. He believed the lot closer to West Shore Drive would have an easier go than the lot that is futher in. Roland L. said he was

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 3-14-18 Page 9 of 11

bringing it up because if the board is asked, can the board say that definitively this will not have an impact on that area. He didn’t feel the board could, because the board had no idea of the depth of the water, or the vegetation. Mr. Stanley didn’t think it was any different than the area he and Roland lived on at Upper Goose Pond, some areas are shallow. He said there was also plenty of aquatic vegetation and the landowners are able to utilize their docks. He thought this was similar.

Roland L. stated that using Upper Goose as an example, motor craft are prohibited from Upper Goose. Kettle Pond Cabins can’t have anything motorized, they can only have canoes or kayaks. Mr. Stanley asked about the rules? CEO McDonough stated with respect to Kettle Pond it was part of the approval of Kettle Pond. Mr. Stanley asked about the prohibition on Upper Goose? Madge B. said the Town voted on it. Mr. Stanley said he was unaware. Roland said it was a concern with respect to the milfoil, at one time they had it sent off to have it tested and it wasn’t the invasion species but they still closed it off to motorized watercraft.

Steve F. said he would be interested in what the depth was in this location. He felt there would need to be a long dock. He said whether the board looks into it or asks the applicant, it would be good information to know. Mr. Stanley asked if it were 2 feet vs 5 feet, how would it impact things? He felt the homeowner still had the right to use the lake. Roland L. stated he didn’t want to come to the final review and have someone ask the board, “Can you honestly say this development is not going to have a negative impact to the wildlife, fish spawning, however it is worded. I would rather you think about it before hand.” He said to Mr. Stanley, I could give suggestions but you probably would not like to hear them. Things like ‘no motorized watercraft’, ‘a navigational channel that the property owners would have to maintain buoys and people would have to drive thru those’. Roland felt based on the comments of the last meeting, he believed this question would be raised.

CEO McDonough thought water jurisdiction was discussed with an attorney at a workshop over another application. He believed the attorney stated the Town didn’t have jurisdiction over the water. Madge B. was not sure and she said the board never got it in writing. CEO McDonough agreed they didn’t get it in writing. Madge said she was concerned after the meeting that it was a grey area. She said if the board was going to rely on opinion one way or the other, either the Town can imposed conditions or they can’t, she felt she would like a written opinion. Madge asked if CEO McDonough thought there was a definitive answer.

Roger A. thought the attorney had the intent that the board could act on any water related activity for the health and welfare of the community. Roger said it was his opinion that if the board imposed conditions, it would be up to the applicant to bring the Town to court if they thought the board was in error by enforcing anything on the water. Roger said it would be up to the judge to decide whether any criteria imposed by the board, that the applicant had to follow, was valid or not. Roger thought the attorney believed the Town would stand a good chance at winning because the reasons for conditions was for the protection of the water, even though the Town does not have jurisdiction over the water. Roger believed the attorney’s opinion was the Town stood a good chance that the judge would side with the Town. CEO McDonough thought it sounded like both Madge and Roger had differing opinions on what the attorney said. Madge said she wasn’t sure they had differing opinions, she just would feel much better if they had something in writing from the attorney that would have to act to defend the Town. CEO McDonough understood that opinion.

Steve F. said he was not a wildlife biologist, his issue with the board reaching out into the water, was that neighbors to the left and right have free use of the water. Roland L. felt they were grandfathered. Steve did not agree, because if the applicant was before the board to build a house, 100 feet back, the board would have no say over the water. CEO McDonough agreed. Steve believed the only question the board can ask is whether 3 docks with boats on them have an adverse impact vs one dock. The problem is, what our ordinance is asking the board to do, we can’t make a decision on that.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 3-14-18 Page 10 of 11

Roger A. did not believe these 3 docks would be anymore detrimental to the lake that the ones than exist at this time. He said he was there mid fall, there was no ice, and there were no Lilly pads but it was shallow. He didn’t know how far out it was shallow. Madge B. thought the board could ask the applicant to hire a biologist to gives the board an opinion. Mr. Stanley asked what the opinion would be for? Madge said, “If three docks would disturb spawning grounds I guess.” Mr. Stanley said that all docks have to come out for the winter. He noted that there should be no grandfathered dock because again they all are supposed to come out of the water in the fall. He noted there are hundreds of docks on the lake. He added that this area is not listed as a high value aquatic area, whereas there are other areas that are high value areas. He wasn’t sure these two extra docks should get extra scrutiny over other docks. Roland L. stated his concern wasn’t as much over the dock but the activity related to the dock, specifically the size of the motor. Madge said the board definitely did not have jurisdiction over boat traffic. Steve F. agreed, anyone could go into that cove. He said he understood Roland’s concern, if the board restricted these lots from having a motorized boat, it will not stop other people from going into the cove up to the dock. Roland agreed. He just wanted to bring it up based on the wording on the standards and comments from citizens at earlier meetings.

Roger A. stated that the only other thing the board would need is a bond for the electrical and the road. Mr. Stanley said they did meet with Central Maine Power and talked about what would work best. Steve F. asked if Mr. Stanley would be coming to the next meeting with Mylar’s. Mr. Stanley thought that might be premature but the plan would be very close to final.

Roger A. wasn’t sure if Shapleigh could hold anything (a bond) for Acton. He wanted Mr. Stanley aware that could be an issue as well. Mr. Stanley said he was still working with Acton.

CEO McDonough asked if they knew the location of the wells? Mr. Stanley said they had some proposed locations on the plan. He said it was a little challenging due to the terrain but he understood CEO McDonough did not want them within 100 feet of the water. CEO McDonough thought there should be a condition that wells would not be within 100 feet of the water.

Steve F. asked if the turnaround on Apple Road had been decided. Mr. Stanley said he had talked to RC Burnell but did have to sit down with him to put it on the plan.

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

The next planning board meeting will be on Tuesday, March 27th at 6:30 p.m.

Nothing further was discussed.

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

OTHER:

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

Barbara F. wanted the board to know that it had been over 90 days since the applicant had been before the board. It had actually been since November 14, 2017. She wanted to know what the board wanted to do? §105-73.F(3) reads: A conditional use permit tabled at the request of the applicant or planning board shall expire if after 90 days the applicant does not return before the planning board with new information in order to continue with the application process.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 3-14-18 Page 11 of 11

Roger A. and Madge B. agreed the application, based on the ordinance had now expired. Because there was not quorum to vote on this item, it will be brought back up at the next meeting to dispense with the application. Note: Roland L. and Steve F. had recused themselves from the review of this application, therefore, they cannot act on it.

Nothing further was discussed.

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

Growth Permits -There are growth permits available.

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

The Planning Board meeting ended at 7:15 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, March 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.

Respectively submitted,

Barbara Felong,

Land Use Secretary planningboard@shapleigh.net