|May 31, 2019|
Shapleigh Planning Board
Tuesday, May 14, 2019
Members in attendance: Roger Allaire (Chairman), Madge Baker, Roland Legere, Maggie Moody and Alternate Ann Harris. Code Enforcement Officer Mike Demers was also in attendance. Steve Foglio was unable to attend.
Minutes are not verbatim, unless in quotes “” – If the name of a citizen making a comment was not requested by the Planning Board Chairman, the reference to their name will be known as ‘Citizen’.
The minutes from Tuesday, April 23, 2019 were accepted as read.
The Planning Board meeting started at 7:30 p.m.
Best Possible Location – Repair Sills / New Foundation – Map 20, Lot 7 (104 Shapleigh Corner Road) – Gallo Construction, Applicant; Brant Duncan, Property Owner
Mr. Gallo and Mr. Duncan were present for the review of the application. Board members did a site inspection prior to this evenings meeting.
Previously provided along with the application were the following:
1) Email from Brant Duncan to Code Enforcement Officer Mike Demers, dated April 3, 2019, stating that Mike Gallo of Gallo Construction could represent him during the permitting process with the Town of Shapleigh.
2) Subsurface Wastewater Disposal System Application for a 2 bedroom house, dated 4/11/96, designed by Kenneth Gardner, SE #73.
3) Plan Survey drafted by Dana Libby, PLS #1350, dated 3/18/19, entitled ‘Plan Showing A Boundary Survey for Brant J. & Marianne Duncan, 100 Commonwealth Road, Lynn, MA 01904, Property Located on Shapleigh Corner Road (State Route 11) & Mousam Lake in Shapleigh, Maine’. This plan depicts 4 existing structures on site, along with a set of stairs to the water. The structures depicted are entitled House – height 12.0’; House – height 19.5’, Sunroom & Shed.
In addition, the survey plan depicts the structure that will have the sills replaced and a new foundation, as being 63.24 feet to the high water mark at its closest point, 6.21 feet to the lot line of Map 20, Lot 8 at the closest point; and 8.11 feet from the adjacent structure on this lot.
Detailed Description of Project on the Application states: Raise House 3’ – Repair Sills, Lower House on New 8’ High Poured Concrete Foundation w/Egress Windows.
Roger A. began by stating the application was reviewed under §105-4 ‘Nonconformance’. Roger read section D(3) ‘Foundations’ (a) Whenever a new, enlarged, or replacement foundation is constructed under a nonconforming structure, the structure and the new foundation must be placed such that the setback requirement is met to the greatest practical extent as determined by the Planning Board, basing its decision on the criteria specified in Subsection D(7), Relocation, below. Roger then read D(7) in its entirety.
Page 1 of 16
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 14, 2019 Page 2 of 16
Roger A. told Mr. Gallo that the two or three trees being removed could not be any further from the water than the ones that exist today. He added that they had to be six feet in height.
Roland L. thought in this case the stumps would have to be removed instead of being ground. Roger A. said during the excavating they would get pulled out, as they will be adjacent. Mr. Gallo thought he might be able to grind one of them. He said the other two are part of the existing foundation, therefore, they will have to be pulled.
Roland L. asked about a revegetation plan. He said in some instances you can just grind but if the stumps are being removed and attached roots, there will be a fair amount of area in the front that will be distributed. Roland asked what their plan was to revegetate that area. Mr. Gallo said they would be putting it back to the existing grade, and place 12 trees to replace the trees being removed, an average of 6 feet high and 4 inches on the girth. He said the only thing he thought Roger said was, that he couldn’t have them all the same species, he noted that he liked to use white pine, so people can keep it trimmed. Roger A. said that with any more than five trees, it can’t be all one species. Mr. Gallo said he would mix it up. He said he got the trees at Springvale Nurseries.
Roger A. asked about the disturbed soil, what would happen there? Mr. Gallo stated that it would be redistributed and reseeded. Roger said there is no plan that shows what it is you will be doing. Mr. Gallo stated that until he got to the site and started digging, he would not know how big an area would be disturbed. He said if they hit ledge they are only going to repair the sills on the existing structure. If they can get the foundation in, then they will create a plan showing the CEO what they will disturb and how they will put the area back to its natural state. Roger said this is typically approved by the Planning Board. Roger said the CEO will get the approved plan, he enforces what the Planning Board approves, the board can’t enforce anything. He said, the CEO will ensure that whatever the Planning Board approves is done as approved. He added that this even includes the location of the trees, and what type of ground cover will be used. Mr. Gallo stated that once he knew the extent of the area to be disturbed, he will create a plan and provide it for the board.
Roger A. stated that the foundation will need to be have a surveyor state that the placement of the foundation is correct. Mr. Gallo said he understood, and he will have the pins set and pour the cement around the pins. He added that he provides the customer with a surveyed plan, stamped, showing the location of the foundation. He said he could provide a copy of that for the board.
Roger A. stated that whomever would be doing the digging would need to be DEP certified. Mr. Gallo asked by whom? Roger said that the DEP certifies and provides a license for erosion control in the shoreland. Mr. Gallo thought the only person certified was the person setting the sediment control, not his excavator. Mr. Gallo was told the excavator had to be as well. He said that could be a problem, he was not sure if the excavator was licensed. He wondered if there was anyone in the Acton/Shapleigh area that was certified. Mr. Aleva, who was there to present the board with another application, stated that most contractors in the area were certified by the DEP. He said it was just a class they had to take to get certified. Roger agreed, it was an 8 hour course. Roger said if you go to the DEP website, the contractors are listed.
Roger A. stated that Best Management Practices needed to be used until the completion of the project, which included stabilizing all the soil.
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 14, 2019 Page 3 of 16
Roger A. asked if he had a start and completion date? Mr. Gallo stated that he did not plan on starting until fall. He said he liked to put a completion date of December 25th, then he could remember the date. Madge B. said it was not a good date to plant, she thought the board would prefer a different date due to the plantings. Mr. Gallo said that was the completion date for the job. She asked if they would plant before then. Mr. Gallo said they would probably plant in October or November, Springvale Nurseries will do the plantings. Madge said they could give a date in the following spring to get the plantings done. He said he would like the contract done by December 25th. Madge said if he doesn’t finish, he will have to come back before the board.
Madge B. wanted to be sure the drainage around the foundation will be adequate for storm water. She asked if she could assume it would be? Roger A. said there wouldn’t be any stormwater change. Madge asked with a new foundation if they automatically put in drainage? Roger said when they backfill there will be drainage around the foundation, he added that CEO Demers would be looking at that as well. Madge said it is important.
Roger A. said it is paved to the bulkhead now, so he thought they would repave again. Madge B. said the pavement causes a drainage issue, so how does the board know that will be addressed? Roger said they won’t be taking all the pavement out, and as the pavement sits today it is fairly flat. He said that will be the level for any new pavement. Madge said she wanted to know where the water was going to go, and is it adequate now? She said nothing was submitted. Roger said he didn’t notice any issue. Mr. Gallo said the piece of land will be exactly as it is now when finished. Roger said he noticed no washouts now, and with respect to regrading, he will have to do it to prevent an issue.
Roland L. stated the runoff will change, because the canopy is being removed. He stated that the existing tree canopy is really slowing down the rain as it comes down, and without it there, there will be more of an impact. He said there will be more sheeting off the roof, etc. Madge B. agreed and thanked him for the support with respect to her concern. Roland said that is why the board wants trees, to slow the runoff into the lake. He said with the absence of the trees, the rain goes on the roof and there is a greater likelihood it could cause erosion now. He said he wasn’t saying it would, but it could, because of the lack of canopy it is possible. Madge said that since they are not starting until September, could the board get a planting plan from Mr. Gallo now. He is going to use Springvale Nursery, he has someone who will do it, could the board have them design a plan, and submit it to the board. Madge said if they find they cannot dig, fine, but at least the board would have something in place if they do. She added that the board typically gets the plan before they start, not after. She said it won’t hold him up. Mr. Gallo said that they are going to replant trees. Roland stated, “The trees that are going to be replaced, we are talking about the difference between a toothpick and a telephone pole. There is no comparison”.
Mr. Gallo asked if what they were saying is that there will be the same amount of rain, but it will sheet off a little faster. Roland L. said, “I believe so, because the canopy slows it down”. Roland also wanted to know at what point Mr. Gallo will decide whether they will do the foundation or not? Will it be before or after the trees are removed? Mr. Gallo said it would be before the trees are removed. Roland said that it was possible that if the unfortunate occurs and there is ledge, would that change the plans to remove the trees or would they have to come down regardless? Mr. Gallo said that if they do not put in a foundation, the trees will stay. He said the only reason they will come down with the foundation is because they will not survive the digging around the foundation.
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 14, 2019 Page 4 of 16
Ann H. asked how they would know if they are going to hit ledge. Mr. Gallo said they will reach underneath with a backhoe; if there is no ledge, the crane will be brought in to take the trees down. He said, we will not waste any time, and he is hoping it is all sand. He said he would not blast so close to the houses, and the expense would not be worth it for the homeowner.
Mr. Gallo said he had no problem with the board having the condition of having a plan that is suitable for replanting. He will put where they will plant grass, adding that they put in a thicker blade grass to prevent erosion.
Ann H. asked if the building would be staying in the same location? Roger A. said they may want to think about moving the building 18” or so to get more height. Mr. Gallo did not believe they could move the 18”, he didn’t believe it could ‘economically’ be moved. He said anything could be done, but it would be costly due to the location.
Roger A. stated that there are 4 criteria that an applicant must meet in order to have a variance granted. He said if he felt as though he could meet all four, then he should go for it.
Roger A. asked if the board wanted to postpone the approval until a replanting plan is provided. Madge B. said that the board usually has the plan prior to approval, because there is no mechanism for getting the plan at a later date.
Madge B. moved that the board table the application until a revegetating plan is received. Maggie M. 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. By a vote of 5 – 0, the motion passed unanimously.
Ann H. thought if he was using Springvale Nurseries, they would know what type of trees to plant. Madge B. agreed. Madge asked if there was anything else the board needed? Roger said the type of trees to be used needs to be on the plan, along with the location.
Nothing further was discussed.
Best Possible Location – New Foundation/Basement – Map 40, Lot 20 (263 Granny Kent Pond Road) – Harry Spiliopoulos, Applicant
Mr. Spiliopoulos was present for the review of the application.
Provided along with the application, was a plan drafted by Dana A. Libby, PLS 1350, dated July 29, 1999, entitled ‘This Is Not A Standard Boundary Survey – Mortgage Loan Inspection Made For Sanford Institution for Savings & Its Title Insurer’. The plan depicted the general location of the existing cottage, Granny Kent Pond Road, Granny Kent Pond, the boundary distances per the deed, that being one site lot line as 130.0’, the second side lot line as 130.6’, the road frontage as 50.0’ and the distance on Granny Kent Pond as 50.0’. There also appeared to be a shaded parking area.
In addition, provided was a copy of the Subsurface Wastewater Disposal System Application, dated 8/23/97, drafted by Mark J. Hampton, SE #263, for a 2 bedroom home.
The Detailed Description of the Project is as follows: A full basement will be added to structure.
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 14, 2019 Page 5 of 16
Roger A. asked Mr. Spiliopoulos to brief the board on what he wanted to do. Mr. Spiliopoulos stated that he had a 37’ x 16’ cottage that he would like to put a full foundation under. He said right now it was sitting on cement blocks in a sandy soil, there is a minimal grade and it is about 10 feet above the water level or a little higher. He said most of the trees he had are far enough away, he didn’t see a problem with trees. He said he wanted to lift up the cottage enough to get it off the ground and for some storage. He said it was built in the 1940’s, so its time.
Mr. Spiliopoulos stated he would be using Caleb Chessie as a contractor for the ground work; Mike Morin would be doing the lifting and Mr. Lambert for the Foundation. He said that Mr. Chessie had come up with a general idea about drainage around the foundation, and backfilling to reduce the flow of water. He didn’t believe they would have to remove any trees, but if they did he would replace them with something similar or shrubbery.
Mr. Spiliopoulos stated that he was limited to movement on the lot as it is a small lot, 50’ x 145’ give or take, and he noted the location of the septic system which was in the driveway, which consisted of a 1000 gallon holding tank with three chambers coming off of it. He said this was behind the cottage, so he did not feel he could move it backward. Currently he believed the cottage was 51 feet from the high water mark, so he knew he could not go forward.
Mr. Spiliopoulos stated that the contractors will probably move it forward, dig the foundation, then move it back in to place, to make it easier for them to do the excavation work. He said the current height of the structure was 12 feet, so he believed he would be looking at a 6’ frost wall in the back and 4’ in the front. He stated that they would be doing a drainage system and backfill with gravel for a positive drainage system, so all water goes into the ground. He said it was all sand in this location, no ledge, so he didn’t feel there would be any problems, the water should absorb well. He said anything additional that the board requires would not be an issue.
Roger A. stated that a site inspection would be scheduled for 6:00 pm on May 28th. A Notice to Abutters will be mailed as well.
Ann H. asked if he needed a site plan for the next meeting? Roger A. stated that the board would need a landscaping plan for what will be taking place where there is any soil disturbance. Mr. Spiliopoulos stated that he did not know if he would be disturbing any trees until they get into the project. He said one problem is some of the trees are shared with the neighbor’s boundary, so he needed to speak with them prior to the project.
Roger A. stated the board would need to know about the backfilling area, how that will be stabilized. Mr. Spiliopoulos thought Mr. Chessie could get him this information. Roger stated that he knew Mr. Chessie, and he may have a hard time getting a landscaping plan from him, he probably should get someone else to do it. Mr. Spiliopoulos asked if the board had any name suggestions? Roger said the board can’t pick out a person, but CEO Demers may be able to give him some names.
Roland L. stated that the board did not require someone else to do this plan, he could make a plan that meets the expectations of the board. Mr. Spiliopoulos asked what those were? Roger A. stated the board needed to know what he would put in place to prevent and stop soil erosion. He said when Mr. Chessie digs beyond the foundation, whatever distance that is, it needs to be addressed. You can use bark mulch
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 14, 2019 Page 6 of 16
or plantings. The board needs to know what you will do to put the ground back and stabilize the area. Mr. Spiliopoulos thought he would use crush gravel and pea stone.
Roger A. stated that the fill coming out for the foundation also needed to be addressed. Where will it set, and that has to be stabilized, to prevent it from running off into the lake. He said the board needed a plan showing and stating what will be used to prevent erosion. He said, if you are using mulch, state that, and show where it will be placed. Roger noted that the person working on this project had to be DEP certified in erosion control, and Roger said Mr. Chessie was certified.
Roger A. stated that Mr. Chessie will use Best Management Practices to help prevent erosion during the project. Roger said again that there needed to be a plan provided on how erosion will be handled once the project is completed, a revegetation plan or where mulch will be place.
Ann H. asked if Mr. Spiliopoulos owned the property and if not, if the board had a letter stating it was ok for him to represent the owner. She asked because the plan provided was in someone else’s name. Mr. Spiliopoulos stated that he was the current owner, this was an old plan he was using.
Nothing further was discussed.
Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit – Replace Retaining Wall(s) – Map 44, Lot 20 (4 Camp Road) – Jonathan & Sandra MacDougall, Applicants
Mr. MacDougall was present for the review of the application.
Provided along with the application, was a plan entitled ‘Retaining Wall Replacement’, drafted by JD MacDougall Inc. Building Contractor, dated 5/6/2019. The plan depicted the lot lines as being: one side lot line as 148.0’, one side lot line as 131.0’, the road frontage along Silver Lake Road as being 65.0’ and the lot line along the water as being 50.0’. Also depicted was the existing private driveway (Camp Road), location of the existing shed, propane fuel tank, 24’ x 18’ home, existing retaining walls and steps, along with the proposed steps to be added and new retaining wall(s). One of the new retaining walls will be in a different configuration than the existing, but the overall size has not increased.
Also provided was the Subsurface Wastewater Disposal System Application, dated 11/7/2006, drafted by John E. Large, SE #7 for a 3 bedroom home; as well as pictures of the existing retaining walls.
The Detailed Description of the Project is as follows: Replace one 10’ x 30” PT 6 X 6 and one 20’ x 30” PT 6 X 6 retaining wall with Genest retaining wall blocks.
Roger A. asked Mr. MacDougall to let the board know what he intended to do. Mr. MacDougall stated that he wanted to replace 2 walls, they are listed as 30” high but he believed they were more like 24” high, they are 6’ x 6’ and have been in place for about 40 years. He said the only change from the existing wall was on one of the walls he wanted to have it curve around instead of being at a right angle.
Roland L. asked if the curvature would increase or decrease the amount of area? Mr. MacDougall stated that it would be less because the curve is less linear footage than the right angle wall. He stated that he wanted to taper the new wall back into the bank to slow down the water flow. He noted that over the years there
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 14, 2019 Page 7 of 16
have been a lot of changes on site that have helped to reduce stormwater flow. He said they used to use tires but now the retaining walls are there helping with the erosion.
Ann H. asked if the old steps were being removed? Mr. MacDougall stated that they were, and they were putting in steps on the other side of the wall where they hadn’t existed before.
Roger A. asked if Mr. MacDougall had applied for the DEP Permit by Rule? Mr. MacDougall stated that he had. Roger asked if he had received any notice from them? Mr. MacDougall stated that he had not to date. Roger said there is 14 days that they can reply. Mr. MacDougall stated that they were close to the 14 days.
Roger A. asked about erosion control? Mr. Mr. MacDougall stated that during the project they were putting in a silt fence. Roger asked about when done in the disturbed area. Mr. MacDougall stated that he wasn’t going to change what was there now, there is already erosion control. The surface will be as it is now. There will be a compact base, and the area now is very stable. He said again the area will be as it is now.
Roger A. stated a site inspection will held at 6:30 p.m. on May 28th, and a Notice to Abutter’s will be mailed as well.
Nothing further was discussed.
Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit – Addition of a 104’ x 126’ Boat Storage Facility – Map 3, Lot 16A (86 Emery Mills Road) – Geoffrey Aleva, PE, Applicant; Chief Realty, LLC, Property Owners
Mr. Aleva was present to review the application.
Provided along with the application, was information from the ME Dept. of the Secretary of State, regarding Chief Realty, LLC, that being it is in good standing and was filed on 1/25/2016; an email from Jill Richards of Parker’s Boathouse Inc., stating that Geoffrey R. Aleva, PE of Civil Consultants could sign regulatory applications for submittals on behalf of Parker’s storage building project in Shapleigh; a response from Civil Consultants in a Memorandum form that demonstrates the proposed use meets all the criteria necessary for a Conditional Use Permit; a copy of the tax map depicting Map 3, Lot 16A in a highlighted fashion; a copy of the USGS Map for the site location; a copy of the Flood Insurance Map for the site location (showing it is not located in the flood zone); Beginning With Habitats Map (which did not depict a rare plant or animal habitat); Lot Coverage Determination for Parker’s Boathouse, showing both existing and proposed as 14.3%.
Also provided was a copy of an aerial view of the location depicting the hydrologic soil group and a description of what the soil group means with respect to water infiltration when soils are not protected by vegetation, are thoroughly wet, and received precipitation from long-duration storms. This location appears to have predominantly LyC (70.7%) and LyE (14.6%) soils which have a Class D rating. This rating is as follows: Soils having a very slow infiltration rate (high runoff potential) when thoroughly wet. These consist chiefly of clays that have a high shrink-swell potential, soils that have a high water table,
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 14, 2019 Page 8 of 16
soils that have a clay pan or clay layer at or near the surface, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission.
A Stormwater Management Plan was provided drafted by Neil Rapoza, PE 12169 of Civil Consultants, dated 5/7/2019. Both a Pre-Drainage Plan and Post-Drainage Plan was drafted, along with a detailed narrative for the proposed project. The conclusion of the report is as follows: Conclusion: Through the use of the modified detention facilities and structures to mitigate stormwater flow from the site, the runoff calculated for the post-development condition is predicted to have an overall decrease in runoff compared to the pre-development condition for the 50 year storm events analyzed. The analysis is somewhat conservative as it did not incorporate stormwater infiltration into the onsite soils. It is our opinion that the proposed site modification will not result in an impact on downstream waterways or abutters with respect to stormwater quantity and quality.
A full size site plan and proposed construction details were drafted by Geoffrey R. Aleva, PE #9679, dated 5/7/2019. The site plan depicts the existing three buildings, the existing paved area, gravel drive to be improved, the location of rip rap and retention pond to be added, silt fence or filter berm location, drainage flow and the location of the proposed structure. The proposed construction details depict the silt fence detail, filter berm detail, board crested weir, typical gravel drive section, riprap apron pipe outlet detail, a second riprap apron pipe outlet detail and the hay bale barrier. It also lists the erosion and sediment control practices, and seeding mixture and schedule.
The Project Narrative is as follows:
This project is located at Parkers Boathouse on 86 Emery Mills Road in Shapleigh, Maine. The lot is known as Map 3, Lot 16A and 16A01 on the Town of Shapleigh Tax Map system. This site is currently utilized as a boat storage facility. The intent of this project is to add a new 104’ x 126’ boat storage building. The new building will be positioned over existing exterior boat storage and will require minimal impact to existing vegetation and wildlife habitats.
We have confirmed via the Maine Beginning With Habitats Map 2 (Plant and Animal Habitat overlay) that this project is located outside any substantial wildlife habitats. The property is not located in a flood zone based on FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) community-panel number 2301980015B.
The total area of land impacted by this project will be approximately 1 acre. This includes the new gravel drive, drainage facilities and graded areas. A drainage study has been performed to ensure the site can handle a 50 year storm event with no adverse impacts on abutting properties.
The subject lot is unique in that it consists of several parcels that have been merged over the years. Using information on file at the York County Registry of Deeds and sketches prepared by Middle Branch Surveyors, a compiled lot area has been determined for the area in question.
For the purpose of determining the proposed lot coverage, it was determined that the portion of the lot that could be classified as a “flag lot” would be removed from the usable lot area. This consists of the 100’ wide section and the connected land to the north. The portion of the lot that directly abuts Emery Mills Road and is the location of the existing development has been assumed to be the usable area.
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 14, 2019 Page 9 of 16
Using this methodology, it has been conservatively determined that the proposed development will result in a lot coverage of 14.3%. This is well below the maximum allowable 20% coverage. See the attached sketch for coverage determination.
The proposed development meets all applicable standards of a conditional use permit. A checklist has been provided indicating how each standard has been met. We have also included supplemental information as part of this application.
Attachments in the application package include:
• Abutters List
• Tax Map
• USGS Map
• Flood Map
• Web Soil Survey Map
• Beginning With Habitats Map
• Proposed Site Plan
• Erosion Control Plan
• Drainage Plans
• Sketch for lot coverage determination
The Detailed Description of the Project is as follows: This project includes the addition of 104 FT by 126 FT Boat Storage Facility. There will be no additional water or sewer line connections as part of this project.
Roger A. asked Mr. Aleva to tell the board what they intended to do. Mr. Aleva stated he was before the board for an Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for Parker’s Boathouse for them to build a building that is roughly 13,000 sf to allow them to have stacked boat storage. He said it is on the northern part of the property, and the building will be on land that has already been disturbed, currently boats are being stored on it. He stated they have a plan to put in grading and controlled drainage, and a detention pond will be created at the base of the hill to capture the water. He stated the property is not in the shoreland, it does not have to go to the DEP for any permits. He said there will be erosion control around where the foundation is going to be. He said once the exact geometry for the inside of the building is designed, Civil Consultants will be designing the foundation. He said when this is approved they will go for a building permit from the Town.
Mr. Aleva stated the site plan was created with some survey information created over the years by Middle Branch Surveyors, along with some of the things Civil Consultants has done to get the project to work with respect to the soils, because it is a big building. He said there is bedrock, and from an engineering standpoint they may be able to drill into it, which makes it easier than poured concrete.
Ann H. asked how they would get into the building? Mr. Aleva showed on the plan how they will enter the building and how they would access it. Noting that forklifts will move the boats and lift them into place.
Ann H. asked if there would be enough room to get a fire engine to and around the building? She stated that it was an issue the last time this applicant was before the board, whether or not there would be
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 14, 2019 Page 10 of 16
fire access. Mr. Aleva said with the proposed contours they are flattening the area out. He said that they would also have to drive boats in that space, so he believed it was better access than what is there now. He felt they could access both sides of the building.
Maggie M. thought there was a limited space between the two buildings and that was an issue. Mr. Aleva said there was more than 12 feet between the two buildings, so he felt they could get access.
Ann H. asked about the gated entrance, she did not think they would be able to use that for access. Mr. Aleva said the gate will still remain. Roger A. stated they would need a DOT permit for the second entrance. Mr. Aleva said the entrance with the gate would not be used. Roger said that the entrance was not supposed to be there at all without a permit. Roger also said that the application was under Chief Realty, he asked if that was all the same lot as Parker’s? Mr. Aleva said it was all the same lot.
Roger A. asked about the number of doors in the building. Mr. Aleva stated that there would be pass doors, but only one entrance door for the boats. So if someone needs to get out, there will be a door for that, but not a door for someone to drive straight thru.
Roger A. asked if there would be power in the building? Mr. Aleva said there would be power for lights in the building.
Ann H. said there would be a detention pond, she noted at the last review there was a neighbor being flooded by water that came from this property. Mr. Aleva said there is a lot of water that comes off this property.
Ann H. said it was very important that he determines that a fire truck can access the property. She didn’t want them to go forward if they could not get fire access.
The board discussed lot coverage and noted that the lot coverage allowance went from 10% allowed for businesses to 20%. Mr. Aleva stated that in the package he calculated lot coverage as being a little over 14% with this new structure and he didn’t use the property in the back, the odd shaped piece, so he was under the 20% maximum.
Roger A. said at one time this was a separate parcel, which is why he asked about who owned what lot. Mr. Aleva said that he believed this was all one lot. Roger said that being the case they could meet the 20% lot coverage limit with no issue. Mr. Aleva said he provided a sheet of paper that shows the buildings and the lot coverage calculations.
Roger A. stated that Mr. Aleva needs to get in touch with Fire Chief Duane Romano and go over the plan and see if he has any issues. Then FC Romano will have to give the board a letter stating that the plans are ok, that he will have adequate access.
Roger A. stated that in the past DOT only wanted one driveway per lot onto Rte. 109 but recently they approved a second access for another location, so Roger felt they should ask for access now for the second entrance, so they will have it. Mr. Aleva stated he would contact Tony at the DOT.
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 14, 2019 Page 11 of 16
Roger A. read §105-34 ‘Access control on Routes 109 and 11’. “Land lying on Routes 109 and 11 may be divided into lots, but all vehicular movements to and from the highway shall be via a common driveway or entranceway serving adjacent lots or premises. All lots of record existing at the time of the ordinance amendment shall be allowed direct access to Routes 109 and 11, provided that minimum safe sight-distance standards can be met.”
Roger A. said the site distance in this location were fine. Roger said for safety reasons, having the second entrance may be a better option. Mr. Aleva agreed that if the fire department had two options it would be better.
Roland L. asked if the boats would continue to be stored outside, after the building was erected? Mr. Aleva stated the idea was to get the boats inside to clean up the area. But he did not want to say there would be no boats outside. He said the building gives Parker’s more capacity to store boats than what they have now. CEO Demers asked if the board could impose a condition about outdoor storage? Roger A. stated that yes, they could, because the fire department needs to have access to the building. Roger stated that Fire Chief Romano would need to say where he did not want to have boat storage. Roger noted other boat storage facilities in town were not allowed to have boat or trailer storage next to the buildings, so the fire department has access to the building and they do not have to move trailers. Roland L. said the boats would be stacked inside the building but where would they leave the trailers? Roger said much of the time the trailers go home with the owner. Roland said he knew of a location where the trailers were all around the building. Maggie M. said her boat stayed on the trailer and goes into the building. Roland said that in a stacked situation you don’t have the boat on the trailer. Roland said it is like a shelving unit, they lift the boat, slide it in and set it down. Ann H. thought perhaps the retention pond would take up a lot of space where boats are now. Roland and Mr. Aleva stated it would not be the case, the retention area is not that large. Mr. Aleva did not think Parker’s Boathouse would want to give up the opportunity to give up an area to store boats or trailers outside. He said perhaps they just needed to indicate on the plan where they would be stored.
Roland L. asked, “The area that is currently being used to store boats outside, how will it be used after the construction?” He asked if they were still going to have outside storage of boats, is it going to be where the trailers are parked? He said this is the question. Mr. Aleva said he understood his question.
Ann H. asked if there would be a fence around the detention pond? Mr. Aleva said no, it was not very deep. He said that even though the area was bedrock, the soils were pretty porous, the pond is just to slow it down. He didn’t think it would be a standing water situation.
Roger A. stated a Public Hearing will be held on Tuesday, May 28th at 7:00 p.m. A Notice to abutters will be mailed as well. A site inspection will take place at 5:30 p.m. Members will meet at the Town Hall.
Ann H. asked if the board should wait to have the public hearing until they hear from the Fire Chief? Roger A. said no, the board can still hold the public hearing and do the site inspection. Mr. Aleva agreed, stating if he had to, he would revise the plan. Mr. Aleva stated he would contact Fire Chief Romano prior to the next meeting. The other members agreed to hold the public hearing, they did not have to decide on approval if more information was required. Madge B. noted that it was good to hold a public hearing first, to get public input.
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 14, 2019 Page 12 of 16
Nothing further was discussed.
Roger A. addressed CEO Demers, and asked, “On BPL’s, when the board approves them, and they have had a 30% expansion, can you take and grant a new expansion of that same building”? CEO Demers stated, “No, I wouldn’t think so”. Roger said there may be one out there, that had a BPL with 30% expansion and the owner came back and wanted an expansion, and I heard there is a possibility they received a permit to get that expansion. Roger said the reason stated was that they could expand to 1000 square feet now. Roger said, “The thing of it is, they have already had their 30%. They have been shut down basically, you are only allowed to do it once. You can’t have a new expansion, just because our ordinance changed, they have had a 30% expansion”. CEO Demers stated “I see what you are saying”. Roger said, “You had that 30% you had yesterday, now that you have come in because the rules have changed, doesn’t allow you to take and have another expansion for the 1000 feet”. Roland L. asked what this was in reference to, was it what we discussed this evening? Roger said, no.
CEO Demers stated, “The ordinance changed for 10% lot coverage for Parker’s, now it’s up to 20, they can go up to 20”. Roger said they can go up to 20, but it’s not in the shoreland. Roger stated, “In the Shoreland Zone the 30% expansion is a one-time shot, once you get your 30%”. Madge B. agreed, stating it is a different project. CEO Demers, “In what year we adopted DEP’s Chapter 1000, and then we had a choice, we could either do the 30% rule or switch it over to a lot coverage, and square foot coverage, and height restriction. So those new rules now…”. Roger stated that we still have both. CEO Demers stated that we no longer have 30% volume, it is gone. Roger agreed. Ann H. stated, “But if someone took 30% prior to that, that is all they get”. CEO Demers stated, “If they took 30% volume. If they took 30% foot print, then I would say….it depends to on how high the building is, because of what the height restriction is today. So I guess each case would be different, I guess there is no one blanket answer that covers everything”. Roger asked if you are allowed to have a second expansion? CEO Demers stated it would depend on what was in the file, they are allowed 10% lot coverage, they are allowed the 30% expansion up to the 10% and now the height. He said if their previous expansion put them over the height restriction, I would have a hard time with that, but if they were below the current height restriction, everything is subject to the individual property.
Madge B. said, “I felt Roger’s point is the one that I understood, that you get one shot at 30%, you can’t come back later and say ‘I don’t think I used what is now allowed, now is what I can have’.” CEO Demers asked what happens when they tear down and rebuild? He said you are taking that footprint coverage, the only thing you are restricted by is your current footprint, and for 30% expansion, your current square footage, and a height restriction, in a building envelope that is no more non-conforming than was before. Roger A. stated that if they are going to take it down, the board can ask them to move it. Roger said, “That if I had a camp, and I got a 30% expansion back in 1990, and so today I’ve decided I am taking my camp down, because I don’t like it. I want a new place. Today I should be only allowed to say my camp is this size and this tall, and I should only be able to replace it like-kind and stay the same size”. Roger said no deviation, I am just replacing like kind. Ann H. said that you would be grandfathered in, because it is existing. Roger agreed, saying he was just replacing like kind. Roger said because he is removing it, the board has the ability to ask it be moved, but no expansion.
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 14, 2019 Page 13 of 16
Roger A. stated that any approved plan, any deviation from that plan, has to come back before the board. CEO Demers asked if the board was approving expansions? Barbara F. asked if she was understanding what they are saying. She said if the board approved a 30% expansion, whether it be volume or square footage in the past, and now the applicant wants to change the home, can they increase the size, because the new rules might allow it, if it were before the board today? She said they already had their 30% in the past, she didn’t think they could get an addition, even if the 30% is calculated differently now? Madge B. stated, “You can’t keep adding 30%”. Madge said you just get it one time, you can’t add more later. Barbara said, “Ok”.
Roland L. said that he got a permit in 1991, and he ended up with a 6 ½ 12 pitch roof because of the 30% volume, nice and squatty. He said he would like to change that, and get a steeper pitch for a variety of reasons. He asked if he was able to do that? Barbara said, based on what we just discussed, no, if you had your 30%. CEO Demers stated, “The board doesn’t approve the 30%. If somebody came in and just said I want to expand my camp 30%, I do that through my office”. He said it goes to the board for best practical location, if they are going to put in a new foundation. He said that in the ordinance it says expansions of foundation, the foundation and the expansion is to be placed by the Planning Board. He said the board has said they only take a look at the original foundation. Roger said the DEP requires this. Madge B. stated that the board used to do it differently. Roger said the board used to look at the original size and the expanded size to place it. Madge B. said she did not agree that the board should not look at the expansion. CEO Demers noted that the ordinance states that the structure and new foundation must be placed by the Planning Board, and he reviewed the ordinance. Madge B. stated she agreed with Mike’s opinion. Madge wondered if they should get a legal opinion from the Town Attorney, because she thought the board should be looking at the expansion.
CEO Demers said he tried to nail this down with Mike Morse before he left the DEP, but he never got a clarifying answer. He said his position just got filled, and he will pose the same question to him, because he wants to follow the rules. Madge B. stated, “So do we”. CEO Demers laughed and said, in his CEO meetings it is said the only thing consistent about the DEP is they are inconsistent.
Roger A. agreed that the board should look at the entire project, because the board could determine all the factors, including erosion control. He said the board was told by the DEP the expansion went to the CEO. CEO Demers did not agree, nor did Roger. Roger thought the board should see the expanded foundation to be able to make the best determination for location. CEO Demers agreed, stating the board should apply the ordinance as written, not by what the DEP told them. He said his decisions are based on his research, not the DEP.
Madge B. agreed the board should review the application as it is written. She said the board needs to be allowed to look at the whole lot, the septic system location, all other buildings, and put the expanded building in the best possible location. Madge said it sounded like the board was all on the same page, so let’s review the entire structure going forward. The other board members agreed, as did CEO Demers.
Roger A. said he had several calls from neighbors adjacent to The Whole Nine Yards, regarding working on a culvert that is next to a stream that goes into a great lake (Mousam). Roger said there should be a 75 foot setback due to the stream, so there was concern. CEO Demers stated that the stream dissects their
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 14, 2019 Page 14 of 16
property, and he took out a rusted culvert and put in a plastic culvert, and regraded the area with gravel. He said that stream does go into Mousam. He said he has a list of protected streams in his office and that isn’t on it. Barbara F. thought it may be in resource protection, and she said the only reason she thought this because when Knox Auto Body was before the board they had to do an engineered stormwater report because of the stream, because it was part of the Mousam Lake Water Shed and it was protected. She said if you look at the zoning map it is hard to compare, she understood that, but she thought it was protected.
CEO Demers said with what he has, he did not feel he could push a violation. He said he asked the neighbor to do a written complaint and she did not want to do so. Ann H. said, “He just replaced one with another”. CEO Demers said he replaced one with another, opened it up and closed it up, there is no sediment on Shapleigh Corner Road and he did not feel any flowed downstream. Roger A. said he brought it up because of the telephone calls. Roger added that the board had no enforcement, they could only tell people to contact the CEO.
Roger A. stated that The Whole Nine Yards is pushing past a Home Occupation. CEO Demers stated that they were going to move out of town. Roger said that did not matter, a violation of a Conditional Use is a violation, there is no grace period. CEO Demers asked what the violation was? Roger said the Conditional Use is for a home business, he has grown beyond that. CEO Demers asked what condition of his CU he has violated. Roger said he can amend his existing application, but he never has. CEO Demers asked by what matrix he has grown too large?
Roger A. read the definition of Home Occupation which is ‘An occupation or profession which is customarily carried on in a dwelling unit or in a building or other structure accessory to a dwelling unit; carried on by a member of the family residing in the dwelling unit; clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling unit for residential purposes. Real estate offices and resale of purchased merchandise will not be considered as home occupations.’
Roger A. stated that they all did not reside there. CEO Demers asked if they work at that site? Roger did not believe so, he thought they arrived and left. CEO Demers asked if the complaint was they had too many employees? Roger said it is beyond a home occupation. Maggie M. said the recent home occupation the board approved was that they could only have one employee and they could not all be there at once. CEO Demers agreed that he has employees, the question was do the employees do field work or work at the home.
Madge B. asked if we could say it is primarily a residence? She said it sounded like the property was definitely being used as a business, and there may be a residence? CEO Demers said he would right him up for a violation, but what was the violation? Roger stated, §105-40 ‘Home Occupations’. Roger read the ordinance out loud.
Barbara F. said the board allowed them to have a dock out front and everything else out back, she thought that was what he was doing? CEO Demers said he would write him up for §105-40, what would be the remediation? Roger A. stated they would have to amend the CUP, and because of the recent ordinance change they would likely be allowed to have both a regular business and a residence on the property. CEO Demers said if they amend a CUP, pay the fee, he asked if there was any reason it would be denied? Maggie M. and Roger A. said with the ordinance change they had enough land for both. Roger added the
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 14, 2019 Page 15 of 16
board would need to know where the parking would be. Madge B. said it would not shut him down but it would make the site compliant.
Madge B. said she was curious about the alpaca farm, she wanted to know if they kept up the gravel permit? Roger A. said he was told the owner went through bankruptcy and the bond the Town had to reclaim the area, the Selectmen released the money and gave it back to the property owner. He added that nothing was signed off to release the bond, and nothing has been done to reclaim the property.
Ann H. said she insured the place, and she knew Mr. Ferrera, and she was told the Town gave the money back to Mr. Ferrera and she agreed she did not think it was supposed to happen. CEO Demers asked how long ago this was? Ann said that it wasn’t too long ago. Madge B. asked what happens now? Roger said we now have no recourse, unless the Town wants to go in and regrade the area. Madge B. asked Roger if he met with the Selectmen on this? Roger said he would be seeing them soon to discuss application fees. Roland L. said Mr. Ferrera was supposed to reclaim it. Madge said that if anyone starts hauling out gravel they will need a permit, because right now it is not permitted. She said it sounds like there is a problem. Maggie M. said legally the Town was supposed hold the money to be sure it was reclaimed. She said now he is not going to do it. The other board members agreed. Roger said that is why we hold a performance guaranty.
Nothing further was discussed.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
Madge Baker nominated Roger Allaire as Chairman of the Planning Board.
Maggie Moody 2nd the motion.
Roger Allaire accepted the nomination.
All members were in favor. Roger Allaire will remain Chairman of the Planning Board.
Madge Baker nominated Steve Foglio as Vice Chairman of the Planning Board.
Maggie Moody 2nd the motion.
Steve Foglio was not present to accept the nomination.
All members were in favor. Steve Foglio will remain Vice Chairman of the Planning Board.
If Steve F. does not wish to be Vice Chairman, they will reconsider at the next meeting.
Madge Baker nominated Barbara Felong as Planning Board Secretary
Maggie Moody 2nd the motion.
Barbara Felong will remain Secretary of the Planning Board.
Note: This position is hired by the Selectmen
Nothing further was discussed.
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 14, 2019 Page 16 of 16
Growth Permits – There are Growth Permits Available
The Planning Board meeting ended at 9:25 p.m.
NOTE: The summer hours are in effect thru October 31st, the meetings now begin at 7:30 p.m. and any scheduled public hearing begins at 7:00 p.m.
The next meeting will be held Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 7:30 p.m.
The Planning Board meets the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month unless it falls on a holiday or Election Day. Should there be a cancellation due to a storm event, holiday or Election, the meeting will typically be held the following Wednesday, also at 7:30 p.m. Please contact the Land Use Secretary if there is a question in scheduling, 207-636-2844, x404.
Barbara Felong, Land Use Secretary
August 21, 2019 9:04 PM