February 17, 2019  1:31 PM 
November 14, 2018
Other Notices
February 15, 2019
February 08, 2019
January 22, 2019
January 04, 2019
December 19, 2018
November 30, 2018
October 24, 2018

 Shapleigh Planning Board

Minutes

Tuesday, October 23, 2018

Members in attendance: Steve Foglio, (Vice Chairman), Roland Legere, Maggie Moody and Alternate Ann Harris. Code Enforcement Officer Mike Demers was also in attendance. Roger Allaire and Madge Baker were unable to attend. Ann Harris sat in as a regular member this evening.

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

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 Public Hearing began at 7:00 p.m.

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 Public Hearing. Mr. Boucher was present as well.

Steve F. opened the public hearing by asking Mrs. Boucher to let the audience know her intentions.

Mrs. Boucher stated that she wanted to open a State licensed in-home day care for up to 12 children. She would be utilizing the basement of her home, along with the 1st floor.

Citizen – My only concern is around traffic. 12 kids means 24 parents coming in and out dropping kids off and picking them up. It’s a private development that is not supposed to have any businesses in it, it is in our deeds. So I don’t know if this has been waived, as there has been a long term debate over this. The other concern is over the lake and lake access. This is a private lake and a small community, so again 12 kids means 24 parents, are they going to come in and use the lake, what would that look like. That is a lot of people.

Steve F. – The traffic part of it is something the board has to weigh when considering a Conditional Use Application.

Citizen – These are dirt roads that are not very well maintained. So that is a lot of traffic.

Steve F. – Are you familiar where the location is?

Citizen – Yup.

Steve F. – Are you an abutter or neighbor? Where do you live?

Citizen – Yes.

Citizen – We are abutters.

Steve F. – To address the concern with deed covenants. We have looked at that and we do not know if they are in effect or in use at this point. It depends on which attorney you ask. And so we put it on the applicant to make the determination if she wants to move forward. It would be a civil matter, it is nothing the Planning Board would have any jurisdiction over.

Page 1 of 16

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10-23-2018 Page 2 of 16

Mrs. Boucher – With respect to the lake, with a licensed day care you cannot have children around the water unless you are a lifeguard, and I am not a certified life guard. So there will not be any children or their parents going down to the lake.

Citizen – Similar concern, after pickup, especially in the summer time there is nothing to prevent them, once the parents pick up, their going down to the beach and down to the lake. That is one of the concerns I raise. It is crazy enough with all the summer people, and I am a seasonal summer person. It is crazy enough with all the seasonal summer traffic running up and down the streets. My concern would be in the winter time, the safety of the kids. The covenant thing, I would consider secondary, because I would have no problem with having some cottage industries in the neighborhood. It’s the type of business that concerns me with this one. I know the kids by license cannot go down to the lake, but the beach is crowded and it is hard to keep it policed in the summer. We’ve had too many calls to have to get the names to give to the Sheriff in the past for folks that are around here. I don’t expect that to happen from this parent group but there is nothing to prevent them from coming down and taking a swim after day care and using the facilities and that is a concern.

Mrs. Boucher – I could have it in my contract to the parents that it is a private lake, that we are an association and they are not permitted to swim down there. The other thing is that just because I am licensed for 12, does not mean I will have 12 children. I could just have a couple of kids. When it comes to getting licensed that is the number you are able to have. It does not mean I will have 12 children and 24 parents coming in and out of my home.

Citizen – So if she had six kids is there, is it a State law that she needs another adult watching the kids with her, and fencing, so kids don’t go out into the road when someone is going 30 mph?

Steve F. – I believe that part of it is dealt with at the State level.

Citizen – OK

Steve F. – I believe as a board, we have the option to add requirements.

Citizen – People drive way too fast in the neighborhood. I am scared for the kids. Where Mrs. Boucher is located, maybe it isn’t an issue. We are on the main road.

Mrs. Boucher – The kids will be out back. They will not be out front or near the road.

Roland L. – You may find it interesting to know that the distance from the road to the back yard, it’s not like 10 feet away, there is a considerable distance. It’s on the plan.

Citizen – Through the woods it is actually a lot closer.

Mr. Boucher – There is a berm. You would have to climb to get over it.

Roland L. – At the site visit, the board commented on how thick the vegetation was behind the house, even without the foliage. They would have to intentionally work to get through it.

Citizen – What are the ages of the day care kids you would be interested in?

Mrs. Boucher – I would be licensed for six weeks up to twelve years old. But again, it is a matter of who comes. Some families have more than one child, so the traffic could be one family has two or three kids, so that is one vehicle. It is not necessarily the amount of kids equals the amount of parents.

Mr. Boucher – The Association states that you can’t have a commercial business but you can have a residential business.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10-23-2018 Page 3 of 16

Citizen – The reason for a Conditional Use Permit is to provide a commercial service, so how can this not be commercial. Aren’t you applying for a Conditional Use Permit?

Mrs. Boucher – Yes, I guess so, but this isn’t a commercial business. It is not an LLC, it is just an in-home private day care.

Maggie M. – It is a different category.

Citizen – The Association rules are not in effect.

Citizen – We do not know if they have been dissolved. Nobody knows.

Steve F. – Exactly.

Citizen – We pay road fees, like she does, he does. But to have more people come in to a private development. We pay road fees to maintain the roads, these people coming in are not paying road fees. She is collecting money to have a day care. That is a concern.

Steve F. – And there is a water association.

Citizen – After the winter plowing we have to put reclaim there and that costs money. The more traffic you get, the more pot holes you get. She doesn’t live far off the town road, but still, it is a lot of traffic.

Steve F. – OK. Any comments from the board?

There were no additional comments.

The public hearing closed at 7:10 p.m.

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

The minutes from Tuesday, October 9, 2018 were accepted as read.

The Planning Board meeting started at 7:30 p.m.

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

Conditional Use Permit – In-home Day Care – Map 11, Lot 28-6 (18 Green Ghost Road) – Megan Boucher, Applicant & Owner

Mrs. and Mr. Boucher were 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

Received this evening was a second sketch plan which depicted the dimensions of the turnaround area, the width of the driveway, the size of the existing home, along with a general layout of the area to be used for the day care, the location of the existing shed, and backyard which is bordered at the rear lot line with a sand berm and vegetation.

For the file, the Planning Board secretary provided a copy of the Subsurface Wastewater Disposal System Application for a 3 bedroom home, done by Mark Truman, SE #121, plan dated 1/29/2002.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10-23-2018 Page 4 of 16

Steve F. once again asked Mrs. Boucher to state her intentions. Mrs. Boucher stated that she intended to open an in-home day care for up to 12 children.

Mrs. Boucher was asked what her hours of operation would be? She stated 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Roland L. stated that the board generally asks that the applicant makes sure they include all hours that may be needed, such as in this case a parent running late, etc. The board did not want her to have to come back to amend the approved hours. Mrs. Boucher stated that the hours would be 6:30 a.m. thru 6:00 p.m. She believed that is the most she would need.

Steve F. stated that the board did hear a lot of concerns during the public hearing, but most had to do with the Association. In the event the Association takes issue with this, this is a step for all concerned to take through the Association. The board is going to look at this application from the applicable standards for an in-home child care and conditional use, but again the board can’t deal with the Association issue. This is not the board’s jurisdiction. He asked if this made sense? He stated that traffic and noise are applicable standards according to the ordinance, but them using the beach and that sort of thing, the board does not have control over that.

Citizen – And you don’t plow the roads at all, so you have no jurisdiction there at all, do you?

Steve F. – Other than the fact that you live in the Town of Shapleigh, the only jurisdiction is to make sure this citizen meets our ordinance standards.

Mrs. Boucher – My only other thought is about other people coming in that are not part of the Association. What about friends and family, you can’t tell them they can’t come because they don’t pay for the roads?

Citizen – But that isn’t a business.

Mrs. Boucher – It’s an in-home business.

Citizen – Years ago, people trying to get businesses in there, you denied them.

Steve F. – Who did?

Citizen – The Town denied them but I can’t remember who. I have been here 16 years. It’s a residential area, it is not zoned to have a business in that area.

Mrs. Boucher – Commercial business, not residential.

Ann H. – It depends on what kind of business that they are trying to put into that area.

Citizen – They couldn’t have vehicles with the name of their business on their vehicle living there. So it is some type of business. It was something to do with businesses in the development.

Mrs. Boucher – It says commercial businesses, it does not say anything about residential businesses. I have read all the covenants.

Citizen – So if you give her a permit to have a day care, then you have to give two or three other places, if they want day cares, you have to give them a permit. As long as they pass everything.

Steve F. – That is correct, if they apply for a Conditional Use and meet the specific criteria.

Citizen – So if they pass it and you allow it, now we have 40 or 50 kids.

Mrs. Boucher – What are the chances of that?

Citizen – 100 percent. 16 years ago we had 25 kids in the neighborhood, five years ago we had 4 or 5. Now we have another 12 or 15 that moved in. I do not hate kids, I have kids and grandkids of my own. I am just saying if you have a day care at one house, it will be hard to deny the next person as long as they pass the criteria.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10-23-2018 Page 5 of 16

Steve F. – What I am saying is if this applicant met the criteria in our section of the ordinance, why would we deny them? We are not the Association.

Citizen – So if we come in for one, if she comes in and wants 12 kids…

Roland L. – We are agents of the ordinance and if you are the applicant and you met the requirements in the ordinance, we cannot deny you that. Even if we may not agree with it. If the applicant meets the conditions in the ordinance then we have no choice. That is their right as residents and tax payers in Shapleigh.

Steve F. began the review of §105-40.1 ‘Child day care’, Sections A & B. Steve noted that much of the criteria for the day care is dictated by the State of Maine (Dept. of Health & Human Services).

Steve then reviewed the pertinent Basic Performance Standards as follows:

105-21 – Traffic. Roland L. stated that the site distances could be met. Ann H. stated that at least two vehicles could pull in because of the length of the driveway, to drop the child off.

A citizen asked if the children would be allowed to use the bus stop, because if so, that would create another issue because there was no parking, as it is now. Mrs. Boucher stated that she could walk the children to the bus stop, she was close enough. She added that she could not say at this time that she would have school-aged children. She would prefer younger children, because a school-aged child would be in school, taking up one of her spots, so the goal is to take younger children.

105-22 – Noise. Steve F. stated this ordinance speaks about excessive noise at unreasonable hours shall be muffled. He wasn’t sure how you would check a decibel level of a day care, but he believed in the event of a complaint the CEO would have to follow up.

105-23 – Dust, fumes, vapors and gases. Steve F. stated this would not be an issue with this application.

105-24 – Odors. Steve F. stated there would be no odors from this activity.

105-25 – Glare. Steve F. stated the board spoke about lighting at the site inspection. He believed they may want to add lighting in the front of the home, but nothing that would glare toward the road.

105-33 – Refuse disposal. The waste will be brought to the Shapleigh Transfer Station by the applicant.

Steve F. did ask the applicant how she would be disposing of any trash? Mrs. Boucher stated she would be taking it to the Transfer Station and noted that it would be minimal. She stated that this isn’t the first time she had a day care, and again, very little trash is generated. Roland L. stated again for the record, any refuse generated, Mrs. Boucher would take it to the Transfer Station. Mrs. Boucher stated, “Yes”.

Steve F. then reviewed §105-73.G ‘Standards applicable to conditional uses’:

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. Steve F. stated, it will not. There is no vegetation being cleared and it is not near any pond.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10-23-2018 Page 6 of 16

2) The use will conserve shore cover and visual, as well as actual, access to water bodies. Steve F. stated that although there was discussion about the pond, the applicant stated she had no intension of taking the children to the water, therefore this is not applicable. He noted again, that this was an Association issue with respect to the beach.

3) The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Steve F. stated it is, the Comp Plan wants home based businesses in the Town.

4) Traffic access to the site is safe. Steve F. stated that the site distances can be met in both directions. Steve stated that the board noted that the location was difficult to find when going on the site inspection, so he believed there needed to be a reflective street number sign out by the end of the driveway in case of an emergency. The other board members agreed this should be a condition of approval. Steve noted that others who live in this area may want to consider this as well.

5) The site design is in conformance with all municipal flood hazard protection regulations. Steve F. stated it is, the structure is in existence, permitted by the Town and is not in the flood zone.

6) Adequate provision for the disposal of all wastewater and solid waste has been made. Steve F. stated the applicant will take any refuse to the Transfer Station and there is an existing State approved Subsurface Wastewater Disposal System. The plan is on file, Site Evaluator is Mark Truman, SE #121, plan dated 1/29/2002.

7) Adequate provision for the transportation, storage and disposal of any hazardous materials has been made. Steve F. 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. Steve F. stated this is not applicable because there is no change to the existing structures on site to create an impervious surface.

9) Adequate provisions to control soil erosion and sedimentation have been made. Steve F. stated this is not applicable, as there are no changes being made to the property or exterior of the existing structure.

10) There is adequate water supply to meet the demands of the proposed use and for fire protection purposes. Steve F. stated there is.

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. Steve F. stated there was a very good vegetative screen at the rear of the property. The only neighbor close was to the right of this location. Steve wanted a provision that if in the future that neighbor has a concern, a fence would be erected. Roland L. agreed that if there was an issue, such as children wandering around, one should be erected. He believed the site would lend itself well to a fence, as there would not be a large distance of fence required. Maggie M. did not feel one was required now, but agreed if there was a complaint, one should be installed. Ann H. agreed, it was the only side without trees. Steve said this provision is met with a condition for the fence if needed.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10-23-2018 Page 7 of 16

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

Steve F. asked if there were any other comments or concerns? There were none.

The conditions of the permit are as follows:

1) There shall be a large reflective street marker placed near the end of the driveway, so the location can be easily detected by emergency personal should it be warranted.

2) If there is a complaint by the neighbor on Map 11, Lot 28-7, regarding children going onto his property and creating a disturbance, a fence shall be erected between the two properties by the applicant.

3) The hours of operations shall be 6:30 a.m. thru 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

4) The in-home day care shall not open for business until all required State permits are obtained and a copy of the permits given to the Planning Board.

Ann H. made the motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit for an in-home day care for up to 12 children on Map 11, Lot 28-6, with four conditions. Maggie M. 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. By a vote of 4 – 0, the motion passed unanimously.

Nothing further was discussed.

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

The Findings of Facts

1. The owner of Shapleigh Tax Map 11, Lot 28-6, is Michale Paul Boucher, Jr. of 18 Green Ghost Road, Shapleigh Maine 04076. The property is located in the General Purpose District.

2. The applicant is before the board for a Conditional Use Permit to open an in-home child day care for up to 12 children in the existing residence.

3. Received, along with the application, was a copy of a sketch of the property which depicted the existing residence, location of the septic tank, shed on the property, driveway, and an area for vehicles to turn around on the property.

4. Received was a second sketch plan which depicted the dimensions of the turnaround area, the width of the driveway, and the size of the existing home, along with a general layout of the area to be used for the day care, the location of the existing shed and backyard which is bordered at the rear lot line with a sand berm and vegetation.

5. Received was a copy of the Subsurface Wastewater Disposal System Application for a 3 bedroom home, done by Mark Truman, SE #121, dated 1/29/2002.

6. Meetings were held on Tuesday, October 9, 2018 and Tuesday, October 23, 2018. A notice was mailed to all abutters within 500 feet of the property on October 18, 2018. A site inspection and a Public Hearing were held on October 23, 2018.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10-23-2018 Page 8 of 16

7. After careful consideration of all information received, the pertinent Zoning Ordinances, including the review of the Basic Performance Standards, §105-40.1 ‘Child day care’, and §105-73 ‘Conditional use permits’, the Planning Board unanimously agreed the information as presented met the performance standards in these chapters with conditions.

8. On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 the board unanimously voted to approve the Conditional Use Permit to open an in-home child day care for up to 12 children on Shapleigh Tax Map 11, Lot 28-6, with four conditions.

9. The conditions of the permit are:

1) There shall be a large reflective street marker placed near the end of the driveway, so the location can be easily detected by emergency personal should it be warranted.

2) If there is a complaint by the neighbor on Map 11, Lot 28-7, regarding children going onto his property and creating a disturbance, a fence shall be erected between the two properties by the applicant.

3) The hours of operations shall be 6:30 a.m. thru 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

4) The in-home day care shall not open for business until all required State permits are obtained and a copy of the permits given to the Planning Board.

Motion:

After careful consideration and a review of all material presented to the Board, a motion was made on Tuesday, October 23, 2018, to approve the Conditional Use Permit for an in-home child day care for up to 12 children on Shapleigh Tax Map 11 Lot 28-6, with the above stated four conditions.

Vote:

By a unanimous vote of 4 – 0, the motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit for an in-home child day care for up to 12 children on Shapleigh Tax Map 11, Lot 28-6, per the information provided with four conditions, was accepted.

Decision:

The Conditional Use Permit application for an in-home child day care for up to 12 children on Shapleigh Tax Map 11, Lot 28-6, per the information provided, with four conditions was approved.

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

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

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10-23-2018 Page 9 of 16

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.

Steve F. asked Mr. Geaudreau if he still planned on removing all the walls? Mr. Geaudreau stated that he did. Ann H. asked if he found an excavator yet? Mr. Geaudreau stated that he had several estimates, as soon as he received one more, then he wanted to lay out more details with respect to their estimates. Steve noted it was quite a project.

Ann H. asked if they were going to use a large or small excavator? Mr. Geaudreau stated that they had to use a large excavator.

Steve F. asked if they provided a replant plan? Mr. Geaudreau did provide members with a revegation plan which depicted the removal and replanting of 3 trees, the sloped area to be disturbed would be replanted with native ground cover, and the area around the upper retaining wall would be seeded with grass.

Roland L. asked if there was an updated plan that showed the path of travel by the excavator, would there be a pad they would be working from? Mr. Geaudreau stated that both people he spoke with said they would take part of the upper wall down and then make a pad to work from. He said that they could not use a small excavator because of the size of the blocks they were using for the lower two walls.

Roland L. said when he visited the site, at the water’s edge there were two PVC pipes at each end. He asked if they were the property markers? Mr. Geaudreau stated that one of them was, looking down the hill on the right, that one was approximately the lot line. He said the other one is 8 feet from the property line but that is about where the wall was going to end. He said there were some trees on the left end that would have to be removed if they went all the way to the property line, and they wanted to keep them. He said they were stopping short, so as not to impact the trees.

Roland L. asked what size the blocks were for the lower walls? Mr. Geaudreau stated they were four feet long, 18 inches thick and about 40 inches deep. He said they weigh about 2000 pounds each, which is why the mini excavator would not work. He said on the upper walls they would be using the smaller blocks that are 12 or 18 inches in width. Roland asked about size of the upper wall. Mr. Geaudreau stated they were hoping to replace it with a lower wall, by sloping the area differently. He explained to the board how they wanted to place the blocks.

Roland L. stated that he noticed the nice vegetation that is there now, he believed it was Vinca. Mr. Geaudreau stated that was what they wanted to put back, as they liked it as well, or something similar. Roland asked if it was going to be disturbed? Mr. Geaudreau stated that it would because of how the excavator had to travel. He spoke about how they had to remove what was existing, then they would put excavation mulch down and replant the three trees. After that they would replant the area with a native ground cover and they hoped the area would again look like it does now. Roland wished there was a way

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10-23-2018 Page 10 of 16

to be able to remove the upper wall from the driveway and not disturb that area. Mr. Geaudreau stated in order to do what Roland suggested they would have to remove additional trees, and they did not want to have to do that. Steve F. added that they would be traveling back and forth over the area. Roland stated that he understood but he said that they would not be able to establish a ground cover over landscape mulch. Roland said the Vinca can spread but it won’t grow over landscape fabric and mulch. He was hoping it could be salvaged, as it will take a long time to come back. Mr. Geaudreau agreed with Roland and said if there was any way to do the job and not disturb that area, that would be his goal, but no one has indicated that that was possible, in order to be able to get the lower two walls done. He stated that he told the contractors that when doing the upper walls, that he wanted as little disturbance as possible. He went on to further explain to Roland how they planned to do the job.

Roland L. said something to consider would be to use a tractor with a bucket, they may be able to skim off some of the Vinca and set it to the side and then re-establish it. Mr. Geaudreau stated he would consider that.

Steve F. asked CEO Demers if he was comfortable with being able to enforce the replant plan that was presented this evening. CEO Demers stated that he was.

Steve F. began review of §105-39 ‘Earth removal and filling for activities other than mineral exploration and extraction’, Section D ‘Earth moving in the Shoreland district’. Earth moving in excess of 10 cubic yards shall require a conditional use permit from the Planning Board. Steve stated that the person doing the work had to be DEP certified in erosion control measures. Steve stated that the board received a revegetation plan.

Steve F. then reviewed Section G ‘Conditions of permits’ as follows:

(1) The smallest amount of bare ground shall be exposed for the shortest time feasible. The Planning Board shall set a specific date after which bare ground shall not be exposed. Steve F. asked Mr. Geaudreau what his time frame for the project was? Steve asked what a date of completion would be? Mr. Geaudreau believed the project would take two to three weeks to complete and he hoped to get it done this fall. He did not believe the revegetation would be finished this fall. Mr. Geaudreau agreed that a date of June 1, 2019 would work as a completion date for the entire project.

(2) Temporary ground cover (such as mulch) and temporary runoff filter (such as hay bales in swales) shall be used as required to prevent stream sedimentation. The Planning Board shall set a specific date by which permanent ground cover shall be planted. Steve F. stated that a silt fence would need to be maintained until the project was completed.

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

(4) Lagooning shall be conducted in such a manner as to avoid creation of fish trap conditions. The applicant shall submit written approval from the Department of Marine Resources or Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, as applicable, prior to consideration by the Planning Board. Steve F. stated there would be no lagooning on site.

(5) The extent and type of fill shall be appropriate to the use intended. The applicant shall specify the type and amount of fill to be used. The appropriate type of fill shall be used to create proper drainage. Roland L. stated all fill to be removed and debris had to be taken out of Shapleigh.

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

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10-23-2018 Page 11 of 16

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

(8) Where activities carried out under this article require the removal of existing ground cover, revegetation should be carried out. Steve F. stated that a revegetation plan had been received.

(9) (Reserved)

(10) Specific plans are established to avoid hazards from excessive slopes or standing water. Where embankment must be left upon the completion of operations, it shall be at a slope not steeper than one foot vertical to four feet horizontal. Steve F. stated that there wasn’t much that could be done with the excessive slopes, they are in existence. The new walls should help mitigate future erosion.

(11) The top of a cut or the bottom of a fill section shall not be closer than 10 feet to an adjoining property, unless otherwise specified by the Planning Board.

(12) Sufficient topsoil or loam shall be retained to cover all areas, so that they may be seeded and restored to natural conditions. Steve F. stated a revegetation plan has been provided and approved by the CEO.

Steve F. asked Mr. Geaudreau what would be done with the material removed? Mr. Geaudreau stated the excess soil would be removed during the project and then returned as needed. He stated there wasn’t enough room on site to store the material. He said the excess will be used by the contractor for other jobs. Steve asked about the walls that will be removed? Mr. Geaudreau stated they will be taken out of Shapleigh to be disposed of.

Steve F. then review §105-73.G ‘Standards applicable to conditional uses’:

1) The use will not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, birds or other wildlife habitat. Steve F. stated, it will have a positive impact on fish, aquatic life and wildlife habitat, as it will prevent erosion, and keep soils from going into the lake, once the project is done.

Steve thought multiple layers of silt fence may be required for this project. He said it would be up to the contractor, but in this situation due to the slope it would likely need more than one silt fence. Mr. Geaudreau agreed. He said they would start with the lower walls first and go up, catching the erosion as it goes. Steve noted that a Permit by Rule had been applied for. Mr. Geaudreau agreed that it had and was accepted.

2) The use will conserve shore cover and visual, as well as actual, access to water bodies. Steve F. stated that this project will be an improvement to the site, both to conserve the shore and visually.

3) The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Steve F. stated it is, the Comp Plan wants the waterbodies in Shapleigh protected.

4) Traffic access to the site is safe. Steve F. stated this is not really an issue with this application. Roland L. stated that he would like to add a condition, for the protection of the applicant and neighbors, that the road be returned to the good condition it is in at this time, prior to the project. He said moving the equipment in and out may damage the road. He felt this should be a condition of the project. The board agreed.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10-23-2018 Page 12 of 16

5) The site design is in conformance with all municipal flood hazard protection regulations. Steve F. stated it is, this is not in the flood zone.

6) Adequate provision for the disposal of all wastewater and solid waste has been made. Steve F. stated the old wall will be taken out of Shapleigh by the contractor.

7) Adequate provision for the transportation, storage and disposal of any hazardous materials has been made. Steve F. 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. Steve F. stated the walls are being replaced to prevent stormwater from having an adverse impact on this property and the lake.

9) Adequate provisions to control soil erosion and sedimentation have been made. Steve F. stated silt fences, as many as needed, will be in place until the project is completed. A person certified by the DEP in erosion control shall do the project.

10) There is adequate water supply to meet the demands of the proposed use and for fire protection purposes. Steve F. stated this isn’t applicable for this project.

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. Steve F. stated this is not applicable for this project.

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

Steve F. asked if there were any additional question? There were none.

The conditions of approval are:

1. The project, including the removal and replacement of the existing walls, and revegetation plan which includes the replacement of the three trees to be removed, shall be completed by June 1, 2019. If this date cannot be accomplished the applicant must contact the Code Enforcement Office, and have a new date of completion established.

  1. Best Management Practices shall be kept in place until the project is completed. There must be a person certified by the DEP in erosion control practices on site during the project.
  2. All material from the existing walls to be removed shall be taken out of Shapleigh and disposed of properly.
  3. When the project is completed, 17th Street shall be returned to the existing ‘good’ condition by the Contractor and/or Property owner.
  4. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction through the Code Enforcement Office.

Maggie M. made the motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit to replace the existing retaining walls, which are less than 4 feet in height, and stairs per the plans provided, on property known as Tax Map 28, Lot 17, with five conditions. Ann H. 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. By a vote of 4 – 0, the motion passed unanimously.

Nothing further was discussed.

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

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10-23-2018 Page 13 of 16

The Findings of Facts

1. The owner of Shapleigh Tax Map 28, Lot 17 (78 17st Street), is Alfred Geaudreau, Jr. of 14 Witchtrot Road, South Berwick, ME 03908.

2. The property is located in the Shoreland District and according to the assessor the property contains .18 acres.

3. The application description reads as follows: Replace 4 deteriorating block retaining walls with precast block, remove 3 trees & replace stairs.

4. Received was a 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.

5. Received were pictures of the existing walls & stairs, copy of a 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.

6. Received was a Revegetation Plan which depicted the area where three native trees shall be planted, 6 feet in height, no farther from the water than the existing trees that will be removed; an area that will be revegetated with a native ground cover, and an area that will be seeded with grass.

7. The board reviewed the Basic Performance Standards in the Zoning Ordinance and concurred the application and information as presented met the performance standards, with conditions.

8. The Planning Board reviewed §105-39 ‘Earth removal and filling for activities other than mineral exploration and extraction’, and §105-73 ‘Conditional Use Permits’ and concurred the application and information as presented met the performance standards, with conditions.

9. A notice was mailed to all abutters within 500 feet of the property on October 10, 2018. Meetings were held on Tuesday, October 9, 2018 and Tuesday, October 23, 2018.

10. The Planning Board unanimously agreed to approve the Conditional Use Permit to replace the existing retaining walls, which are less than 4 feet in height, and stairs per the plans provided, on property known as Tax Map 28, Lot 17, with conditions.

11. The conditions of approval are:

  1. The project, including the removal and replacement of the existing walls, and revegetation plan which includes the replacement of the three trees to be removed, shall be completed by

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10-23-2018 Page 14 of 16

June 1, 2019. If this date cannot be accomplished the applicant must contact the Code Enforcement Office, and have a new date of completion established.

  1. Best Management Practices shall be kept in place until the project is completed. There must be a person certified by the DEP in erosion control practices on site during the project.
  2. All material from the existing walls to be removed shall be taken out of Shapleigh and disposed of properly.
  3. When the project is completed, 17th Street shall be returned to the existing ‘good’ condition by the Contractor and/or Property owner.
  4. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction through the Code Enforcement Office.

Motion:

After careful consideration and a review of all material presented to the Board, a motion was made on Tuesday, October 23, 2018, to approve the Conditional Use Permit to replace the 4 existing retaining walls, which are under four feet in height, and a set of stairs, on the property known as Tax Map 28, Lot 17, per the plans provided with five conditions.

Vote:

By a unanimous vote of 4 – 0, the motion to approve the Conditional to replace the 4 existing retaining wall, which are under four feet in height, and a set of stairs, on the property known as Tax Map 28, Lot 17, per the plans provided with five conditions, was accepted.

Decision:

The Conditional Use Permit to replace the 4 existing retaining wall, which are under four feet in height, and a set of stairs, on the property known as Tax Map 28, Lot 17, per the plans provided with five conditions, was approved.

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

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.

At the previous meeting, 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 lot lines, 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 the proposed structure, showing the distance to the lot lines for the proposed.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10-23-2018 Page 15 of 16

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.

At the previous meeting, it was noted by members the existing structure did meet the side lot line distances, looking at the approved plan from 2011. The existing structure did not meet the setback requirements to the water or Pine Cone Drive. The board asked Mr. Pratt to provide the board with a sketch plan that depicted the original 339 sf structure in the proposed location. The CEO would deal with the expansion after the board approved the best possible location of the existing structure.

Steve F. stated that the applicant was requesting that the board move the existing structure back to the 75 foot mark. He said that recent changes to the ordinance allow an expansion at 75 feet for up to 1500 square feet or 30% larger.

Barbara F. asked if the applicant provided a new plan that depicts the existing structure at the 75 foot mark. The plan provided showed the proposed structure at 75 but not the existing. Steve F. asked the applicant to come up to the board and explain what was on the existing plan.

Board members, after listening to Mr. Pratt explain what he wanted to do, explained what the board needed to see on the plan, which was the dimensions of the ‘existing’ shed, placed in the proposed location on the plan ‘only’. Not the proposed structures dimensions. Steve F. stated that the distance measurements of the new shed, those that do not meet the setback requirements are very important, as they will need to be verified by a surveyor that the new structure is placed at that exact location approved by the board. Steve F. and Roland L. both wanted the applicant to be clear that the distances approved on the plan, would be exactly where the foundation of the new structure would have to be placed. Steve added that the new location and expansion will have to get recorded at the York County Registry of Deeds.

It was also discussed among members that in §105-4.D it states that an expansion can be permitted only if the expansion does not increase the nonconformity of the structure. It also notes under D.1(c) that a structure can be expanded as long as other applicable municipal land use standards are met. So in the case of this application, the structure after placement, can only be expanded toward the side lot lines, as the minimum setback to the side lot lines are met at this time, even after relocating the existing structure. It was also noted that the structure can go up to 25 feet in height per Section D.1(c)[2]. The board did state that the actual expansion was through the CEO. But the board wanted the applicant aware of what he would be able to do after placement by the board.

Steve F. asked if there was a replanting plan? Mr. Pratt stated that they intended to use a conservation mix as it worked well, even in poor soils.

After continued discussion, the board asked Mr. Pratt to have a new plan drafted, placing just the dimensions of the existing shed in the best possible location, which the applicant believes is 75 feet from the high water mark, not the proposed size of the structure. The dimensions of the existing shed only, in the proposed location. The board also asked to see a revegetation plan for the area to be disturbed.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 10-23-2018 Page 16 of 16

Steve F. stated the next meeting will be Tuesday, November 13th. He asked the applicant to tell Barbara F. if they will be ready for the board to review on that date and if not to let her know when they are ready.

The board agreed to table the application, until the correct information is provided.

Nothing more was discussed.

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

OTHER:

Barbara F. gave members a copy of §89-36.I under ‘Street design standards’ and §105-17 ‘Land uses’, both changes the board had discussed at a previous meeting. She stated she would like to discuss the ordinance changes at the next meeting, and hold the first Public Hearing on the proposed amendments on Tuesday, November 27th. Board members agreed.

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

Growth Permits

Map 36, Lot 28 (Indian Village Road) – New Home GP #16-18

The board reviewed the lot and approved the application as it is an existing lot of record.

David Patterson of Canbury Homes, Inc., along with the property owners, Richard & Donna Arcand, owners of Map 36, Lot 28, asked the board if they needed to obtain Conditional Use Permit approval, because the property is in part located in the Shoreland District (SD). They noted that the structure itself would be beyond the 250 foot SD delineation. The board members concurred that because the modular home would be beyond the 250 SD boundary, a Conditional Use Permit was not required.

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

The Planning Board meeting ended at 9:20 p.m.

NOTE: The winter hours are in effect thru March 31st, the meetings now begin at 6:30 p.m. and any scheduled public hearing begins at 6:00 p.m.

The next meeting will be held Tuesday, November 13, 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. 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.

Respectfully submitted,

Barbara Felong, Land Use Secretary

planningBoard@shapleigh.net