| November 14, 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.
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:
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.
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
|
||||
Planning Board
February 17, 2019 1:31 PM