|October 24, 2018|
Shapleigh Planning Board
Tuesday, October 9, 2018
Members in attendance: Roger Allaire (Chairman), Steve Foglio, (Vice Chairman), Madge Baker, Roland Legere, Maggie Moody and Alternate Ann Harris. Code Enforcement Officer Mike Demers was also in attendance.
Minutes are not verbatim, unless in quotes “” – If the name of a citizen making a comment was not requested by the Planning Board Chairman, the reference to their name will be known as ‘Citizen’.
The minutes from Tuesday, September 25, 2018 were accepted as read.
The Planning Board meeting started at 7:30 p.m.
Conditional Use Permit – Replace Four Existing Retaining Walls & Stairs – Map 28, Lot 17 (78 17th Street) – Alfred Geaudreau, Applicant & Owner
Mr. Geaudreau was present for the review of the application.
In addition to the application, received was sketch plan entitled ‘Proposal for 78 17th Street Shapleigh, Maine – Replace 4 Deteriorating Block Retaining Walls & Footings with Pre-cast Blocks. Replaced Wall Will Conform to Current Dimensions. Revegetation to be Performed As Required’, which depicted the existing camp and attached porch, the walls to be replaced, stairs to be replaced, and three trees to be removed in relation to the property line and Mousam Lake. Also received were pictures of the existing walls & stairs, copy of map depicting the general location of the property; Subsurface Waste Water Disposal System Variance Request dated 6/11/15, drafted by Kenneth Gardner, SE #73; the Subsurface Wastewater Disposal System Application drafted by Kenneth Gardner, dated 5/27/15; and the Permit by Rule Notification Form, acceptance date of 9/18/18.
The detailed description of the project is as follows: Replace 4 deteriorating block retaining walls with precast blocks, remove 3 trees & replace stairs.
Roger A. asked Mr. Geaudreau to state what he intended to do. Mr. Geaudreau stated that he wanted to replace four retaining walls and a set of stairs, he will need to take down three trees and will replant with whatever is necessary, because they will be impacted by the excavators. Roger said they would need to be removed to get down to the water, Mr. Geaudreau agreed. Mr. Geaudreau stated that they applied to the DEP for a Permit by Rule and it was accepted.
Roger A. asked if they were pouring any concrete into the water? Mr. Geaudreau stated, “No”. Roger noted there was some poured concrete in the water now. Mr. Geaudreau stated that it would be removed and they would be using locking blocks which do not require poured concrete. He added that they would be removing all the debris from the old walls.
Page 1 of 9
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10-9-2018 Page 2 of 9
Roger A. asked if Mr. Geaudreau knew where the old concrete would be going? Mr. Geaudreau stated that he did not know, the contractors would be handling that. He said he would be using someone who is DEP certified. Roger said he was asking because any disposal from a project like this could not go to the Shapleigh Transfer Station. Mr. Geaudreau said, “OK”. Roger said sometimes people use Simpsons, Triano, Punsky, etc. to haul it off site. Madge B. thought the contractors should know that? Roger said it was up to the homeowner to make certain it is disposed of properly. Roger said he hadn’t heard of any issues for a few years at the Transfer Station but there was a time the Selectmen noted that it was an issue, which is why he still brings it up.
Roger A. asked if all walls were under four feet in height? Mr. Geaudreau stated, “Correct”.
Roger A. asked if there would be all new stairs? Mr. Geaudreau stated, “Yes, new stairs. They will not be poured stairs, they will be natural stone”. Madge B. asked if they were stone set into the dirt? Mr. Geaudreau said, “Gravel base with stone set in it”.
Roland L. said on the sketch plan provided, there was a comment that revegetation would be performed as required. He said he would like to see, prior to approval, a detailed description by the applicant, of what he plans to do. He did not feel the board had to come up with a plan, but that the applicant needed to come up with a plan. Roland said he knew the area well, there is going to be a tremendous amount of disturbance created by this project, he added that he knew the project was necessary. He believed that there had to be a very well defined revegetation plan that tells the CEO how it is going to be stabilized and ultimately how it will be maintained. He wanted the applicant to know it wasn’t the boards responsibility to tell him what to do, it was up to him to let the board know what would take place to stabilize the area, and the board will review it, to see if it looks like it will work well and meet the criteria in the ordinance.
Madge B. stated that she agreed with Roland. She said if they need help, they could contact the York County Soil and Conservation District. Roger A. agreed. Madge said they could create a plan for the applicant or sometimes Springvale Nurseries will create a plan using local vegetation.
Mr. Geaudreau stated the reason he put that wording on the plan is because they had to take down the three trees but he didn’t know if there was anything else that would need to be removed, or how many trees he would have to replant. Roger A. said the number of trees would be equal to the number of trees removed and they have to be the same distance from the water as the trees being removed. Roger added that the trees to be replanted must be a minimum of six feet in height from ground level to the top of the tree. Roland L. added that the board has to agree that the trees have to be removed. He said at times applicants would like trees removed but at the site visit it is determined that either that is not necessary or in some cases the board recommends additional trees be removed, because they will be damaged during the project and are unlikely to survive. He said the final determination won’t be made until after the site visit. Roger said he noticed there are some new trees planted there now. Mr. Geaudreau agreed and said they replanted several because they love trees.
Madge B. asked if it mattered if they leave the stump or not? She thought it was usually best to leave the stump. Roger A. said in this location he thought they may have to come out for access to the site. Madge asked if the excavator says they can leaven them, should they? Roger didn’t think the stumps would help in this location.
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10-9-2018 Page 3 of 9
Roland L. asked if they were going to proceed with this project this fall? Madge B. said, “Yes, they definitely want to”. Madge said they needed to wait for the water to go down. Roland thought they were going to put the water level down at the end of the week. He noted the levels were at spring level.
Roger A. stated that the other question was with the 2 foot walls coming into the camp, there was a deck, would the foundation be restabilized? Mr. Geaudreau stated that if he was referring to under the porch, yes they were going to restabilize, putting in hydraulic cement. Roger noted the mortar joints were cracking.
Mr. Geaudreau asked when the revegetation plan had to be submitted, before the next meeting or at the meeting. Roger A. stated he could bring it to the next meeting. Roger added that they would be sending out a notice to abutters per the ordinance, and the board will review once again at the next meeting and entertain any comments or concerns from abutters.
Roger A. stated the board would need a revegetation plan to stabilize the area for the next meeting on Tuesday, October 23rd. A notice to abutters will be mailed and any members who have not been to the location are free to do so prior to the next meeting. Roger and Madge had already been to the site. Roger noted the next meeting will begin at 7:30 p.m.
Nothing further was discussed.
Best Possible Location – Replace Existing Structure – Map 43, Lot 26 (115 Pine Cone Drive) – Roger Pratt, Applicant & Owner
Roger Pratt Sr. & Jr. were present for the review of the application.
In addition to the application, received was sketch plan drafted by John E. Perry Jr. PLS #2127, dated June 25, 2018 entitled ‘Proposed Building Layout, 115 Pine Cone Drive, Shapleigh, Maine’ which depicts the existing structure and proposed structure location and size. The plan shows the distance of the proposed structure to the existing lots line, distance to the water and Pine Cone Drive. The distances for the existing structure to lot lines were not depicted.
The Land Use Secretary provided an approval letter for a Best Possible Location dated October 11, 2011, for the existing structure at this location. Attached to the letter was the location of the existing structure and again the proposed structure showing the distance to the lot lines for the proposed.
The detailed description of the project is as follows: Tear down existing structure and replace with new structure but different dimensional footprint. Move back from shoreline.
Roger A. asked the applicant to let the board know what he wanted to do. Roger Pratt, Sr. began by stating it was his son’s lot but he would be building the structure. He said they wanted to build a year round camp on it, although he did not think it would be used year round.
Mr. Pratt stated there was an existing shed that they proposed to move back 75 feet from the water. He stated the septic is across the street on another lot, and there is a driven point for the well. He said they wanted to use the 10% lot coverage allowed to build a 25’ x 30’ structure.
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10-9-2018 Page 4 of 9
Roger A. stated that it would be 30% of the original footprint. The board members reviewed the original Best Possible Location for the existing shed which depicts the existing shed, eave to eave as 361 sq. ft., and corner of house to eave as being 339 sq. ft. The original BPL approval letter is dated October 11, 2011, but the structure was never expanded.
Roger A. stated that the board can only look at the original footprint. He believed that is what they have to look at. Mr. Pratt asked if moving it back to the 75 feet helped them with the height of the structure, but they would still be stuck with 432 sq. ft.? Mr. Pratt asked about the 10% lot coverage allowed? Roger did not think it came in to play in this case, due to the existing non-conforming lot and building.
Mr. Pratt asked if there was any way they could get a larger size?
Steve F. noted that the only thing the board could look at is the best possible location of the existing structure, the CEO looks at the expansion.
The board members continued to review the plan depicting the existing size of the structure and its location. At present it appears the structure is 65.50 feet to the high water mark at its closest point, the accumulative side setbacks of 30 feet are currently met, but the setback to the road is not met with the existing location being approximately 35 feet from Pine Cone Drive.
Steve F. stated again that the expansion will be done by the Code Enforcement Officer. He said the board will be looking at moving the existing structure to the best possible location. Mr. Pratt stated that they want to move the structure back to the 75 foot mark, so they can build a structure 25 feet high. Steve F. stated, “Understood”. Mr. Pratt said they were hoping to be able to build a structure that could have a set of stairs going to a second floor.
Roland L. stated that the board was bound by the ordinance, it wasn’t that they did not want to accommodate the applicant, they can only follow the dictates that are in the ordinance for the Shoreland. Mr. Pratt stated that they understood, he didn’t realize he was as limited as the board was stating. Mr. Pratt spoke about being able to move back to build a garage but for a residence it is different. Roger A. stated that the language in the ordinance speaks of a structure, it does not say ‘shed’, ‘garage’ or ‘residence’, the rules apply to any structure.
Roger A. asked Mr. Pratt what he wanted to do? Madge B. thought the board should go look at it. Mr. Pratt agreed, then they can discuss it at the next meeting. Ann H. asked if it was staked out? Mr. Pratt stated that what they proposed was staked out. He said even if it is smaller the 75 feet will be the same, it may be skinnier or longer.
Citizen stated, “So they go by the initial footprint, that is existing, plus add on 30%, as long as it doesn’t go over the 10% lot coverage. It is not either / or”. Roger A. added, “Including overhangs, so for the new building the shorter the overhang the better”. Mr. Pratt stated they were not going any closer to the neighbor at 10 feet, so there is room to go by on the other side.
Steve F. stated that with respect to the revised plan, all the board needs to see is the ‘existing’ structure location. Ann H. stated that they didn’t know how many square feet they are going to have. Steve said
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10-9-2018 Page 5 of 9
the board only wants to look at the size of the existing shed, with the setbacks you are proposing, not the proposed structure. This establishes your setbacks. The board cannot look at the expansion.
Mr. Pratt stated, “Then you want just the 339 sf structure in the proposed location”. Steve F. stated, “Exactly”. Madge B. agreed. Roger A. said the board will look at the 361 sf with overhangs, and the board will be establishing the distance to the lot lines and water with that. He said the surveyor will set those figures for the distances to the front and back lines the board approves, and then CEO Demers will set the distance to the side lot lines showing it doesn’t go beyond what is allowed up to the 30%.
It was noted the existing structure does meet the side lot line distances, looking at the approved plan from 2011. Both the existing and proposed structure at that time met the distance to the side lot lines.
Roger A. asked if the leachfield had been put in? Mr. Pratt stated that it has not, they wanted to have the plan updated for a three bedroom home. He said once this is approved he will get a new design. Roger said that was fine.
Roger A. asked members when they wanted to do a site visit? Members agreed they would drop it on the site on an individual basis due to light constraints this time of year. Roger A. stated a notice to abutters will be mailed.
Nothing further was discussed.
Conditional Use Permit – In-home Day Care – Map 11, Lot 28-6 (18 Green Ghost Road) – Megan Boucher, Applicant & Owner
Mrs. Boucher was present for the review of the application.
Along with the application, received was a sketch plan depicting the applicant’s house, front yard, location of the septic system, driveway, shed, and an area on site for vehicles to turn around.
The detailed description of the project is as follows: Licensed In-home Daycare
Roger A. asked Mrs. Boucher to let the board know what she wanted to do.
Mrs. Boucher stated that she wanted to open a licensed day care in her home, not changing anything on site, no new structures. Ann H. asked how many children she would be licensed for? Mrs. Boucher stated that just for herself it would be 3 to 6, but with a helper she could have 7 to 12. Roger A. asked if she wanted to have a helper? Mrs. Boucher stated that the number of children she could have depended on ratio’s. Depending on the age, she could have 7 by herself if they were school aged children. She said it was age dependent, so she didn’t have a definite number other than she would not have more than 12. She said she didn’t know who the children would be at this moment.
Roger A. said his advice would be to ask for as many as she could be allowed to have by the State, so she would not have to amend her application down the road. He said if the board granted up to 6, that is all she would be able to have without coming back to the board. Mrs. Boucher said she understood and she
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10-9-2018 Page 6 of 9
stated that in her application to the State she asked to be licensed for 7 to 12 children. She added that she could not mail in the application to the State until she had Town approval.
Roger A. asked if she had any inspections by the State yet? Mrs. Boucher stated that a State worker came out to speak with her but no inspections were done. She said that once the Town approves the location, she mails it to the State worker and then she comes back out to do an inspection, along with the State Fire Marshall.
Roger A. asked if the yard would be fenced? Mrs. Boucher stated that the State said she did not have to have the yard fenced in because she lived on a dirt road.
Roger A. asked what the hours of operation would be? Mrs. Boucher stated that she was considering 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Roger asked if this would be five days a week? Mrs. Boucher stated, “Yes”. Roger asked if she would be holding summer hours? Mrs. Boucher stated, “Yes”.
Roger A. asked if there was enough parking? Mrs. Boucher stated that they had a long driveway and a turnaround area. Madge B. said it was hard to tell on the existing drawing how much room there was for parking. Mrs. Boucher stated that with their cars pulled all the way in, she felt they could hold eight vehicles. Roger said that typically cars would be dropping off and picking up only. Mrs. Boucher agreed. Roger said that for every 150 sf of area being used for the day care, a parking spot was required. He said that typically a parking space was 200 sf or 10’ x 20’. Roger felt the board will see the area at the site visit. He asked that they put the measurements on the drawing where the parking will be.
Roger A. asked the board if they wanted to visit on an individual basis or together prior to the next meeting?
Board members agreed to meet at the Town Hall at 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 23rd, and be on site at approximately 5:45 p.m. Roger stated a public hearing will be held at 7:00 p.m. and a notice to abutters will be mailed as well.
Nothing further was discussed.
Steve F. noted that there were deed restrictions for the proposed day care location that have not been enforced, but they do include no commercial businesses. He asked if the applicant was aware of this. Barbara F. stated that the applicant was aware of the restrictions and stated she had spoken with someone about them, and was told a day care would not be an issue. Steve said there has been legal questions in the past with regard to the restrictions, he didn’t want the applicant to be unaware. He stated that there was also an opinion that they expired, then may have been reinstated. Roger A. believed deed restrictions always stay in effect.
Barbara said again, that the applicant did speak to her about this and Mrs. Boucher stated that she was told there would not be an issue. Madge B. stated that the Planning Board did not deal with deed restrictions. Barbara stated that she would mention the deed restrictions to the applicant again to be sure she was aware. Madge said that was all we could do. She stated that residents enforce the deed restrictions. She
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10-9-2018 Page 7 of 9
said that if they haven’t been, then they do kind of expire, even though Roger is right, but in fact it expires because if you try to enforce it, it would fail in court. Steve said the association doesn’t have any money,
and wondered would there be enough of a citizen initiative to get the money to bring it to court. Madge agreed it would be unlikely.
Roland L. asked if the board had the right to approve it? Madge B. said, “Yes, because it is a deed restriction, we only deal with the permits, we don’t deal with deed restrictions”.
Possible Ordinance Changes
Amendment to ‘Establishment of Planning Board’
H. Meetings shall be held on the second and
fourth Tuesdays of the month at the time specified on the municipal
calendar. The meetings shall be at the
Town Hall or other suitable meeting place. The Chairman, or upon the request of a majority of the Board, may
schedule a special meeting, provided, however, that notice thereof shall be
given to each member
This amendment was made so that the Establishment of Planning Board mirrored what was amended in the Planning Board By-laws.
Roger A. made the motion to accept the amendment to the Establishment of Planning Board, Section H. Madge B. 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. By a vote of 5 – 0 the motion passed unanimously.
The amendment will be given to Karla to post in the warrant for Town Meeting.
The following definitions were revised at tonight’s meeting. Nothing is final at this time.
BED & BREAKFAST – A residential use conducted by the resident owner within her/his own single-family dwelling offering overnight accommodations to the general public on a transient basis, and providing a full or continental breakfast to overnight guests only. The operation is secondary to the primary residential function, and is not intended to have impacts significantly in excess of those of any other single-family dwelling. This definition shall preclude this use from being classified as a Home Occupation.
Version #2 from Madge:
BED & BREAKFAST – Temporary sleeping accommodations within an existing dwelling unit offered by the resident owner.
Madge was not sure if we then apply Home Occupation or create an ordinance for the B & B.
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10-9-2018 Page 8 of 9
DWELLING, TWO-FAMILY: A single building containing two dwelling units. May also be referred to as a “Duplex”.
The following proposed change was amended to be more concise.
§ 89-14. Procedure
six months after the on-site inspection by the Board, the subdivider shall
§ 89-16. Procedure.
six months after the on-site inspection by the Board, the subdivider shall
§ 89-15. Submissions.
Last sentence: In addition, one copy of the final plan, reduced to a size of 8 ½ inches by 11 inches, and all accompanying information shall be mailed to each Board member, including alternate members and the Code Enforcement Officer, no less than seven days prior to the meeting.
§ 89-17. Submissions.
Fourth sentence: In addition, one copy of the plan(s), reduced to a size of 8 ½ inches by 11 inches, and all accompanying information shall be mailed to each Board member, each alternate member and the Code Enforcement Officer, no less than seven days prior to the meeting.
§ 89-18. Procedure.
F. A public hearing may be held by the Planning
Board within 30 days after the issuance of a receipt for the submittal of an
incomplete application. This hearing shall be advertised in a newspaper of
local circulation at least two times, the date of the first publication to be
at least seven days before the hearing, and the notice of the hearing shall be
posted in at least three prominent places at least seven days prior to the
hearing. When a subdivision is location within 500 feet of a municipal
boundary, and a public hearing is to be held, the Planning Board shall notify
the Clerk and the Planning Board of the adjacent municipality involved, at
§ 89-19. Submissions.
Last sentence: In addition, one copy of the final plan, reduced to a size of 8 ½ inches by 11 inches, and all accompanying information shall be mailed to each Board member, each alternate member and the Code Enforcement Officer, no less than seven days prior to the meeting.
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10-9-2018 Page 9 of 9
The board will continue to review and revise the Subdivision & Zoning Ordinance at future meetings, all changes will be presented to voters at Town Meeting.
Growth Permits – There are permits available
The Planning Board meeting ended at 8:50 p.m.
NOTE: The summers hours are in effect thru October 31st, the meetings begin at 7:30 p.m. and any scheduled public hearings begin at 7:00 p.m.
The next meeting will be held Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 7:30 p.m. The Planning Board meets the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month unless it falls on a holiday or Election Day. Should there be a cancellation due to a storm event, holiday or Election, the meeting will typically be held the following Wednesday, also at 7:30 p.m. Please contact the Land Use Secretary if there is a question in scheduling, 207-636-2844, x404.
Barbara Felong, Land Use Secretary
February 17, 2019 12:55 PM