August 21, 2019  8:28 PM 
June 12, 2019
Other Notices
August 14, 2019
August 09, 2019
July 24, 2019
July 21, 2019
July 10, 2019
July 07, 2019
June 21, 2019
June 05, 2019
May 31, 2019

 Shapleigh Planning Board

Minutes

Tuesday, May 28, 2019

Members in attendance: Roger Allaire (Chairman), Steve Foglio (Vice Chairman), Madge Baker, Roland Legere, Maggie Moody and Alternate Ann Harris. Code Enforcement Officer Mike Demers was also in attendance.

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

Minutes are not verbatim, unless in quotes “” – If the name of a citizen making a comment was not requested by the Planning Board Chairman, the reference to their name will be known as ‘Citizen’.

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

The Public Hearing began at 7:10 p.m.

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. Jill Richards of Parker’s Boathouse was also in attendance.

The Detailed Description of the Project is as follows: This project includes the addition of a 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 if he would like to let all those in attendance know what he would like to do. Mr. Aleva began by introducing himself and that he was with Civil Consultants. He said they were proposing a 13,000 sf boat storage building at Parker’s marine. At the site visit prior to the meeting, he believed the board was able to see where the new structure was going to be placed. He said he spoke with the Fire Chief and said he sent an email to the Code Enforcement Officer regarding the questions for fire protection. He added notes to the plan, keeping access to the area around the storage building. (The note on the plan states: No Boat Storage Within 10 Feet of the Building Perimeter.) He said this was for emergency access. He pointed to the area on the plan he provided. He stated that the Fire Chief would like to have access through the gate, so he would get a punch code.

Roger A. asked if there were any questions for Mr. Aleva? Roland L. said that it was previously mentioned that there would be power to the building. Roland wanted to know if there was going to be any outside lighting? Mr. Aleva did not believe so, he noted the other existing buildings did not have outside lighting. He said there would be power inside the building for lights inside the space but no lights around the perimeter.

Maggie M. asked how many boats could fit inside the new structure? Mr. Aleva, using the plan, showed how the boats would enter the building, be turned around, and placed on the racks. He believed there would be approximately 80 boats stored in the bays along the perimeter, and there would be some storage in the access way. He thought there was a potential for up to 100 boats. He said trailers would still be stored outside, but he noted you wouldn’t be seeing blue tarps any longer because the boats would be inside.

Page 1 of 22

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 28, 2019 Page 2 of 22

Roland L. asked what the depth of the ditch would be? Mr. Aleva said it was approximately 2 to 2 ½ feet of depth before a weir allows an outlet. He said that it would be a gravel base, so water would infiltrate as well. He said there was a basin along the ditch line currently, so in that general area. He noted that although it had rained all day, there was no ponding in it. He said the gravel in this area allows for a lot of infiltration. He said the detention area created will slow down the water, before it is discharged. Roland said this depth does not seem it would pose a drowning hazard. Mr. Aleva said, no, and he showed again the location on the plan and how the water dissipates, noting the pipe outlet and the emergency weir in case it does fill up. Roland asked if the runoff ties into the State drain. Mr. Aleva stated that it did, and noted he provided a drainage report with his initial submission. He said it showed that with this design the amount of water leaving the site after the new structure is up, matches what leaves the site now. Mr. Aleva provided Roland with a larger copy of the plan, so he could clearly see what he was talking about.

Roger A. stated his only concern was regarding the corner of the building that was only 26.7’ from the lot line, he didn’t want anything to be parked in this location. Mr. Aleva understood, and he said along both corners close to the lot line, there wouldn’t be anything parked and he noted they do not park close to the lot line at this time.

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

The public hearing was closed at 7:15 p.m.

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

The minutes from Tuesday, May 14, 2019 were amended as follows:

Steve Foglio was not present to accept the nomination.

All members were in favor. Steve Foglio will remain Vice Chairman of the Planning Board.

The word Vice was added.

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

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. Note: Prior to this evenings meeting the board held a site inspection.

Originally 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 28, 2019 Page 3 of 22

This evening the board was provided with an Erosion Control Plan drafted by Mr. Spiliopoulos. The plan noted that there were 4 trees that may be affected and require removal. The plan also provided information regarding how erosion would be prevented during and after construction. The plan included a depiction of the area around the camp, the location of the 4 existing trees that may be removed, as well as the area where erosion control mulch would be used.

Roger A. asked Mr. Spiliopoulos to brief the board for the record what he intended to do. Mr. Spiliopoulos stated he was putting in a full foundation under the existing camp. He said it was approximately a 34’ x 18’ area to excavate, to a depth of approximately 4 to 5 feet for a frost wall. He said there was a possibility he would have to remove 4 trees, which he marked on the map he provided this evening. He said he also provided a backfill plan. He stated that they would be placing crushed gravel around the footing / base of the foundation, with a crush-proof Flex-Drain tubing over the gravel, covered by porous material and then covered by a four foot area of erosion control mulch around the camp.

Roger A. began by reviewing §105-4.D ‘Nonconforming structures.’ (3) ‘Foundations.’ “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 Section §105-4.D(7) Relocation, in its entirety, which included the description of how revegetation must be accomplished.

Roger A. stated in this location, the replanting of trees removed, keeping them in the same location would be difficult due to the close proximity of the trees to the structure and the lot line. Mr. Spiliopoulos agreed, stating there was only about six feet. Roger said the CEO can discuss this during the permitting process.

Roger A. stated that there would not be any woody and herbaceous vegetation replaced because presently there is none in existence, the area is all sand.

Roger A. concluded with §105-4.D(7)(c) which states ‘All approved plans shall require confirmation in writing by a licensed surveyor that the placement of the structure is correct per the specifications approved by the Planning Board.

Roger A. stated the board agreed the placement of the structure shall remain where it is, because of the location of the septic system. He said the chamber system is in the back of the camp. Madge B. agreed with Roger, because of the location of the septic system there is no advantage to moving it back or to either side, because the distance to the lots lines is similar, and with the trees on both sides, she felt this was as well situated as the board could find or suggest.

Roger A. stated the conditions of the permit are as follows:

1) Best Management Practices shall be in place until the project is completed and the ground is stabilized.

2) The contractor doing the work must be licensed by the Dept. of Environmental Protection in Erosion Control Measures.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 28, 2019 Page 4 of 22

3) Trees removed must be replaced with a tree six feet in height per Shapleigh Zoning Ordinance §105-4.D.7B[1][a].

4) The project shall be completed by November 15, 2019. If this date cannot be met, the applicant shall notify the board of a new projected date of completion.

5) The area shall have erosion control mulch placed around the foundation per the plan presented.

6) Per Shapleigh Zoning Ordinance §105-4.D7(c), the approved plan shall be confirmed in writing by a licensed surveyor that the placement of the structure is correct per the specifications approved by the Planning Board.

Roland L. made the motion to approve the Best Possible Location to put a foundation under the existing structure on Map 40, Lot 20, leaving the structure in the same location, per the plans presented. Maggie M. 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. By a vote of 5 – 0, the motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Spiliopoulos asked if he was supposed to have a surveyor mark where the foundation was supposed to go. Roger A. stated that yes, where it sits now, then when you move it, dig it out and are to move it back, the contractor will know exactly where to place the foundation. The CEO when doing the building permit will go to the site and see that it is placed as approved.

Nothing further was discussed.

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

The Findings of Fact

1. The owner of Shapleigh Tax Map 40, Lot 20 (263 Granny Kent Pond Road), is Harry Spiliopoulos of 129 River Street, Sanford, Maine 04073.

2. The property is located in the Shoreland District and according to the assessor contains 0.16 acres.

3. The applicant is before the board for a Best Possible Location to add a new foundation to the existing structure.

4. Received 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.

5. Received 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.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 28, 2019 Page 5 of 22

6. Received was an Erosion Control Plan drafted by Mr. Spiliopoulos. The plan noted that there were 4 trees that may be affected and require removal. The plan also provided information regarding how erosion would be prevented during and after construction. The plan included a depiction of the area around the camp, the location of the 4 existing trees that may be removed, as well as the area where erosion control mulch would be used.

7. The Detailed Description of the Project is as follows: A full basement will be added to structure.

8. The board reviewed Zoning Ordinance §105-4, ‘Nonconformance’, and concurred the application and information as presented met the standards applicable in this chapter.

9. A notice was mailed to all abutters within 500 feet of the property on May 15, 2019. Meetings were held on Tuesday, May 14, 2019 and Tuesday, May 28, 2019. A site inspection was done on May 28, 2019, prior to the meeting.

10. The Planning Board unanimously agreed to approve the Best Possible Location to add a new foundation under the existing structure, per the plans provided and information discussed during the two meetings held to review the project, with 6 conditions.

11. The conditions of the approval are as follows:

1) Best Management Practices shall be in place until the project is completed and the ground is stabilized.

2) The contractor doing the work must be licensed by the Dept. of Environmental Protection in Erosion Control Measures.

3) Trees removed must be replaced with a tree six feet in height per Shapleigh Zoning Ordinance §105-4.D.7B[1][a].

4) The project shall be completed by November 15, 2019. If this date cannot be met, the applicant shall notify the board of a new projected date of completion.

5) The area shall have erosion control mulch placed around the foundation per the plan presented.

6) Per Shapleigh Zoning Ordinance §105-4.D7(c), the approved plan shall be confirmed in writing by a licensed surveyor that the placement of the structure is correct per the specifications approved by the Planning Board.

Motion:

After careful consideration and a review of all material presented to the Board, including the review of Zoning Ordinance §105-4, ‘Nonconformance’, a motion was made to approve the Best Possible Location to add a new foundation under the existing structure, leaving it in the same location, per the plan provided, on Tax Map 40, Lot 20, with six conditions.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 28, 2019 Page 6 of 22

Vote:

By a unanimous vote of 5 – 0, the motion to approve the Best Possible Location to add a new foundation under the existing structure, leaving it in the same location, per the plan provided, on Tax Map 40, Lot 20, with six conditions, was accepted.

Decision:

The Best Possible Location application to add a new foundation under the existing structure, leaving it in the same location, per the 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’, on Tax Map 40, Lot 20, with six conditions was approved.

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

Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit – Replace Retaining Wall(s) – Map 44, Lot 20 (4 Camp Road) – Jonathan & Sandra MacDougall, Applicant

Mr. MacDougall was present for the review of the application. Note: Prior to this evenings meeting the board held a site inspection.

Previously 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 walls and stairs to be replaced.

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. began the review by reading a letter received from an abutter, Mr. Richard Sawyer who resides at 152 Silver Lake Road. The letter read in part as follows:

Dear Shapleigh Planning Board,

In response to your notification sent to us as an abutter (152 Silver Lake Road) to the request noted above, I would like to inform you that we are okay with this amendment and request that the following stipulation on timing of when work can be performed is put into place to ensure the impact to my family’s time spent at this location is minimized.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 28, 2019 Page 7 of 22

Requested Stipulation on When Work Can’t Be Performed

• Friday – Sunday

• June 28 – July 7

• August 2 – August 11

Since we purchased this home to get away from all the traffic and noise associated with living in the Boston area, we would appreciate that our request is considered when approving this amendment.

Please don’t hesitate to contact me should you have questions. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Steve F. asked Mr. MacDougall if he had any issue with the request. Mr. MacDougall stated that not working on a Friday could be an issue, he had no issue with Saturday and Sunday. Roger gave the dates again, noting it was a two week span. Mr. MacDougall stated that he wanted to get it done sooner rather than later, to have it done before summer. He said it would take less than a week to finish the project, and he stated he would keep this in mind. He said he knew Richard, and said he didn’t tell him he had any issue. He asked the board to provide a copy of the letter for him, CEO Demers did just that.

Ann H. asked Mr. MacDougall if he knew when he was going to start the project? Mr. MacDougall stated he thought it was just prior to the first dates. He said he wanted it done as soon as possible. Madge B. asked where Mr. Sawyer was located. Mr. MacDougall stated that when facing the lake, it was on the left. Madge said perhaps he could minimize the work done on that side during those dates. Mr. MacDougall said it was mostly hand work, there was not going to be equipment on site. Madge didn’t think it would be a problem. Mr. MacDougall thought it would be mostly done between Monday and Thursday in a week. He didn’t think there would be an issue.

Steve F. said he didn’t have an issue with the plan, but it was his understanding that walls had to be replaced exactly as they set now. He said there was no option to deviate from the plan, but he had no issue with this change, as long as the board was not setting outside the boundaries of the ordinance. Roger A. said he agreed with Steve, that as it sits today is how it has to be. He said modifying it would be nice to have, but the board cannot allow a non-conforming structure to be more non-conforming. Mr. MacDougall stated that he was not increasing the impervious surface. Roger agreed but it was a non-conforming structure now. Steve said by moving the wall closer to the property line, it was making the structure more non-conforming. Mr. MacDougall thought a wall was similar to a driveway, where you could move it closer to a property line. The board did not agree, a wall is considered a structure.

Steve F. said he thought this wall as presented was a good idea, and noted the fact that in many cases they look at a modification to a wall as making perfect sense, but the board is handcuffed by what is in the ordinance. He said if the board feels we can do it, he was open to opinion.

CEO Demers asked if the DEP had any comment regarding his plan? Mr. MacDougall stated that he was notified that the DEP didn’t get his map, so he sent it in. He said the DEP didn’t have any other comments about what he sent in. Roger A. asked if it was put in as a Permit by Rule? Mr. MacDougall stated, “Yes”. Roger said that he may not get notified. Mr. MacDougall agreed, unless they object. CEO

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 28, 2019 Page 8 of 22

Demers stated that he gets the approval typically. He thought they would send one to Mr. MacDougall, but if it was incomplete it may take a little longer.

Roger A. asked the board their thoughts about the placement of the wall. Ann H. didn’t think the board could allow placement any closer to the property line. Madge B. agreed, because it would increase the non-conformity to the setback. Ann asked if he could curve it closer. Mr. MacDougall said he wasn’t looking for a curve as much as he was looking to move it into the bank, that is why he placed it as he did.

Roger A. said all he believed the board could do is replace like with like. Ann H. and Madge B. agreed. Ann asked about the new steps. Madge said he was taking out steps and putting in steps, so he wasn’t adding anything more non-conforming. Steve F. stated that stairs are not regulated, he felt the board had a lot of flexibility with stairs. He said it was just the wall that was an issue.

Roger A. asked if he had a motion to replace the walls, as they are today?

Roland L. asked about the existing wall, what would be done with it? Roger A. said the old timbers cannot go to the transfer station. Mr. MacDougall stated either he or the contractor would remove them from site. He said he would take them to Simpson’s in Sanford, or another place that was adequate.

Maggie M. made the motion to 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, on Map 44, Lot 20, keeping the wall size and location exactly as they exist now, with the condition that the existing pressure treated walls will be taken out of Shapleigh and disposed of properly. Roland L. 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. By a vote of 5 – 0, the motion passed unanimously.

Nothing further was discussed.

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

The Findings of Fact

1. The owner of Shapleigh Tax Map 44, Lot 20 (4 Camp Road), is Jonathan MacDougall, mailing address of P.O. Box 566, Shapleigh, Maine 04076.

2. The property is located in the Shoreland District and according to the assessor contains 0.16 acres.

3. The applicant is before the board for a Best Possible Location to replace two existing retaining walls.

4. Received 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). The plan depicted one of the new retaining walls would be in a different configuration than the existing, but the overall size had not increased.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 28, 2019 Page 9 of 22

5. Received was a copy of the Subsurface Wastewater Disposal System Application, dated 11/7/2006, drafted by John E. Large, SE #7 for a 3 bedroom home.

6. Received were pictures of the two existing retaining walls and stairs to be replaced.

7. 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.

8. The board reviewed Zoning Ordinance §105-4, ‘Nonconformance’, and concurred the application and information as presented met the standards applicable in this chapter.

9. A notice was mailed to all abutters within 500 feet of the property on May 15, 2019. Meetings were held on Tuesday, May 14, 2019 and May 28, 2019. A site inspection was also done on May 28, 2019, prior to the meeting.

10. The Planning Board unanimously agreed to approve the Best Possible Location to replace the stairs and two retaining walls, keeping the walls the same dimension and in the same location with one condition.

11. The condition of the approval is as follows:

1) The existing pressure treated 6 x 6 timbers shall be removed from site, taken out of Shapleigh, and disposed of properly.

Motion:

After careful consideration and a review of all material presented to the Board, including the review of Zoning Ordinance §105-4, ‘Nonconformance’, a motion was made to approve the Best Possible Location to replace the existing stairs, and one 10’ x 30” PT 6 X 6 and one 20’ x 30” PT 6 X 6 retaining wall with Genest retaining wall blocks, on Map 44, Lot 20, keeping the walls the same dimension and in the same location, with the condition that the existing pressure treated walls will be taken out of Shapleigh and disposed of properly.

Vote:

By a unanimous vote of 5 – 0, the motion to approve the Best Possible Location to replace the existing stairs, and one 10’ x 30” PT 6 X 6 and one 20’ x 30” PT 6 X 6 retaining wall with Genest retaining wall blocks, on Map 44, Lot 20, keeping the walls the same dimension and in the same location, with the condition that the existing pressure treated walls will be taken out of Shapleigh and disposed of properly, was accepted.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 28, 2019 Page 10 of 22

Decision:

The Best Possible Location application to replace the existing stairs, and one 10’ x 30” PT 6 X 6 and one 20’ x 30” PT 6 X 6 retaining wall with Genest retaining wall blocks, on Map 44, Lot 20, keeping the walls the same dimension and in the same location, with the condition that the existing pressure treated walls will be taken out of Shapleigh and disposed of properly, was approved.

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

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. Note: Members did a site visit prior to this evenings meeting.

Originally 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,

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.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 28, 2019 Page 11 of 22

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 the 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.

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

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 28, 2019 Page 12 of 22

• 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 a 104 FT by 126 FT Boat Storage Facility. There will be no additional water or sewer line connections as part of this project.

This evening, provided was an 8 ½ x 11 updated copy of the site plan which included a notation that there would be no boat storage within 10 feet of the storage building, and an email from Mr. Aleva to CEO Demers, dated 5/28/2019, which read in part as follows:

Mike,

I spoke with the Fire Chief yesterday and we discussed some additional information that will be placed on the plans.

He still does not have any issues with the project. We will add this information to the plans as well.

• We will add a Knox box at the gate location, for access if needed. A pathway will be left open to the proposed building.

• No boats or trailer will be parked directly adjacent to the perimeter of the building. The plans will indicate a minimum of 10 feet clear space around the building.

• The access to the building will be kept open behind the store toward the new storage building.

• Man doors will be placed in the storage building for access in the event of an emergency.

No changes to access for the driveway. All public access will be via the existing driveway.

Roger A. asked Mr. Aleva to once again state their intentions for the record. Mr. Aleva stated that he was an engineer from Civil Consultants. He was representing the applicant for the proposed construction of a boat storage building on the property. He stated they had a site visit earlier in the evening, he believed even with the rain the board could see what was going to take place. He said the building will hold 80 to 100 boats, and there will be clear access around the building for safety, he noted the areas on the plan. He stated the Fire Chief asked for access through the gate, in an area that is typically closed. He said it was a metal building, no lights on the exterior, but there will be power for lights on the interior. He asked if there were any questions?

Madge B. asked where the trailers would be parked? Madge said she understood he knows they cannot be against the building but she was curious where they would go. Jill Richards told Mr. Aleva that the majority of the boats do not have trailers. He said they would go pick them up and put them into the building. He noted that now there are a lot of pontoon boats on foam blocks, so those will be put into the building. He said there was room to store some trailers on site, and there was also room inside the building to store some boats on trailers. He showed, using the plan, the area where they wanted to have

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 28, 2019 Page 13 of 22

everything centralized to make the area look a lot cleaner, and he noted that now they won’t have to shrink wrap boats. Madge said the last time this project was discussed there was concern about a lot of traffic backing the trailers up, because of the slope, there are areas that may not be good for traffic. Mr. Aleva said that it should be said that when the trailers are placed on the lot, it is by the staff of Parker’s, not by you or I, and it is their equipment. He said you bring your boat in and they take it and place it where it needs to go. Madge said, “OK”. Ann H. said that they use small equipment like little tractors, not vehicles. Ms. Richards agreed that they use small tractors.

Mr. William Paladino asked to speak. He said that he lived directly across the street, and he said he wasn’t sure if there were other meetings held with respect to this. Madge B. said there was a public hearing earlier. Mr. Paladino said the last time they were before the board, he was concerned with runoff, as there is a significant amount of water that comes off the property. He stated that he just spent a lot of money trying to stop the stormwater problem on his property and wanted to be sure that a stormwater study had been done. He asked if there was a water retention area? He was concerned that it might be too close to Route 109. Roger A. and Madge both said that they had that information. He asked if the area would be paved or was it staying as it is. Mr. Aleva stated it was staying the way it is. Mr. Palladino said, “Ok”. Madge agreed, they were not paving.

Mr. Aleva stated that there was a stormwater report that showed how they would reduce the flow of stormwater. They would be using a retention pond to capture the flow to slow down the water before it leaves the site. He said it wasn’t on the road, it is upslope to capture it.

Mr. Paladino asked if it was going to go slowly, so it won’t wash over 109? Mr. Aleva said it would not go over 109, but go into the culvert that goes under 109.

Roger A. began review of the basic performance standards.

105-21 – Traffic. Roger A. stated the access is safe, site distances can be met in both directions. Roger stated that the drop-off is in the same location, so there is no change there. He also noted that the fire department would have access to the property, both from the existing entrance and through the gated access.

105-22 – Noise. Roger A. stated there is a limited amount of noise generated by this activity. Once the building is completed there will be no change to the noise generated on site.

105-23 – Dust, fumes, vapors and gases. Roger A. stated there is no dust, fumes, vapors or gases generated by this activity.

105-24 – Odors. Roger A. stated there would be no offensive odors produced by this activity.

105-25 – Glare. Roger A. stated there would be no lighting added to the outside of the new structure, so glare is not an issue.

105-26 – Stormwater runoff. Roger A. stated that a stormwater runoff plan was provided by Neil J. Rapoza PLS #12169 of Civil Consultants, dated March 2019 which concluded that post-development condition is predicted to have an overall decrease in runoff compared to the pre-development condition for the 50 year storm events.

105-27 – Erosion control. Roger A. stated that erosion control was addressed in the Proposed Construction Details, Sheet L2, drafted by Geoffrey R. Aleva of Civil Consultants, PE #9679, dated 5/7/2019.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 28, 2019 Page 14 of 22

105-28 – Setbacks and screening. Roger A. stated there are no changes being made to setbacks and screening from what exists today.

105-29 – Explosive materials. Roger A. stated there would be no explosive materials, batteries will be disconnected, and gasoline will be removed.

105-30 – Water quality. Roger A. stated there is no outside storage of chemicals.

105-31 – Preservation of landscape; landscaping of parking and storage areas. Roger A. stated additional landscaping would not add to this location, the building will be at least 40 feet above State Route 109, so adding trees would not be a benefit. He added that the stormwater drainage system is in front of the building, along State Route 109, therefore nothing will be added there other than what is on the plan to direct stormwater.

Board members asked how much room there would be around the building for fire access. Mr. Aleva stated that there would be approximately 10 feet. All board members agreed additional screening would not work in this location, and that is why the board changed this requirement to ‘may’ instead of ‘shall’ because it doesn’t always work. Also, the look of the landscape won’t change by not adding new vegetation, because there isn’t any there now.

105-32 - Relation of proposed building to the environment. Roger A. stated the building fits in well with the existing buildings on site.

105-33 – Refuse disposal. Roger A. stated that refuse disposal will be as it is now, there is a dumpster, and it was noted there will be less refuse because there won’t be shrink wrap disposal required.

105-34 – Access control on Routes 109 and 11. Roger A. stated there is existing access on Route 109 that will continue to be utilized.

105-39 – Earth removal and filling for activities other than mineral exploration and extraction. Roger A. stated that there is very little earth moving to be done with this project, most of the earth moving has already taken place.

Roger A. then reviewed §105-73.G ‘Standards applicable to conditional uses’ and made findings of fact.

Standards applicable to conditional uses. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed use meets all of the following criteria. The Board shall approve the application unless it makes written findings that one or more of these criteria have not been met.

1) The use will not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, birds or other wildlife habitat. Roger A. stated, it will not.

2) The use will conserve shore cover and visual, as well as actual, access to water bodies. Roger A. stated this is not applicable.

3) The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Roger A. stated it is, the Comp Plan wants businesses along Route 109.

4) Traffic access to the site is safe. Roger A. stated the existing location has been previously approved and site distances can be met in both direction.

5) The site design is in conformance with all municipal flood hazard protection regulations. Roger A. stated it is, this location is not in a flood zone as recognized by FEMA for the Town of Shapleigh.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 28, 2019 Page 15 of 22

6) Adequate provision for the disposal of all wastewater and solid waste has been made. Roger A. stated this is not applicable for this application.

7) Adequate provision for the transportation, storage and disposal of any hazardous materials has been made. Roger A. stated that there is none generated by this activity.

8) A stormwater drainage system capable of handling fifty-year storm without adverse impact on adjacent properties has been designed. Roger A. stated a stormwater runoff plan was provided by Neil J. Rapoza PLS #12169 of Civil Consultants, dated March 2019.

9) Adequate provisions to control soil erosion and sedimentation have been made. Roger A. stated erosion control was addressed in the Proposed Construction Details, Sheet L2, drafted by Geoffrey R. Aleva of Civil Consultants, PE #9679, dated 5/7/2019.

10) There is adequate water supply to meet the demands of the proposed use and for fire protection purposes. Roger A. stated there was, and the board had an email stating the conditions requested by the Fire Chief, and these conditions will be met.

11) The provisions for buffer strips and on-site landscaping provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development, such as noise, glare, fumes, dust, odors and the like. Roger A. stated everything will remain as it is today, nothing additional is being done.

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

Roger A. stated the condition of approval is:

1) The Fire Department requests in the email from Geoffrey Aleva to Mike Demers, dated 5/28/2019, shall be adhered to, the requests are as follows:

• Add a Knox box at the gate location, for access if needed. A pathway will be left open to the proposed building.

• No boats or trailer will be parked directly adjacent to the perimeter of the building. The plans will indicate a minimum of 10 feet clear space around the building.

• The access to the building will be kept open behind the store toward the new storage building.

• Man doors will be placed in the storage building for access in the event of an emergency.

Madge B. moved for approval for the addition of a 104’ x 126’ Boat Storage Building to be located on Map 3, Lot 16A, per the plans provided, with the stated condition. Maggie M. 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. By a vote of 5 – 0, the motion passed unanimously.

Nothing further was discussed.

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

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 28, 2019 Page 16 of 22

The Findings of Fact

1. The owner of Shapleigh Tax Map 3, Lot 16A (4 Camp Road), is Chief Realty, LLC, mailing address of 86 Emery Mills Road, Shapleigh, Maine 04076.

2. The property is located in the General Purpose District and according to the assessor contains 8.17 acres.

3. The applicant is before the board for an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for the addition of a 104’ x 126’ Boat Storage Building.

4. Received was 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%.

5. Received 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, 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.

6. Received was a Stormwater Management Plan 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.

7. Received was 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.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 28, 2019 Page 17 of 22

8. Received was an 8 ½ x 11 updated copy of the site plan which included a notation that there would be no boat or trailer storage within 10 feet of the storage building, as well as these additional provisions requested by the Fire Chief as follows: Add a Knox box at the gate location, for access if needed; A pathway will be left open to the proposed building; The access to the building will be kept open behind the store toward the new storage building; Man doors will be placed in the storage building for access in the event of an emergency.

9. The Detailed Description of the Project is as follows: This project includes the addition of a 104 FT by 126 FT Boat Storage Facility. There will be no additional water or sewer line connections as part of this project.

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

11. The board reviewed Zoning Ordinance §105-73, Section G, ‘Standards applicable to conditional uses’ and concurred the application and information as presented met the performance standards in this chapter, with one condition.

12. A notice was mailed to all abutters within 500 feet of the property on May 15, 2019. Meetings were held on Tuesday, May 14, 2019 and May 28, 2019. A site inspection was also done on May 28, 2019, prior to the meeting, and a Public Hearing was held at 7:00 p.m. on May 28, 2019.

13. The Planning unanimously agreed to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the addition of a 104’ x 126’ Boat Storage Building to be located on Map 3, Lot 16A, per the plans provided, with one condition.

14. The condition of the approval is as follows:

The Fire Department requests in the email from Geoffrey Aleva to Mike Demers, dated 5/28/2019, shall be adhered to, the requests are as follows:

• Add a Knox box at the gate location, for access if needed. A pathway will be left open to the proposed building.

• No boats or trailer will be parked directly adjacent to the perimeter of the building. The plans will indicate a minimum of 10 feet clear space around the building.

• The access to the building will be kept open behind the store toward the new storage building.

• Man doors will be placed in the storage building for access in the event of an emergency.

Motion:

After careful consideration and a review of all material presented to the Board, including the review of the Zoning Ordinances ‘Basic Performance Standards’, and §105-73, Section G, ‘Standards applicable to Conditional uses’, a motion was made on Tuesday, May 28, 2019 on the Amendment to a Conditional

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 28, 2019 Page 18 of 22

Use Permit for the addition of a 104’ x 126’ Boat Storage Building to be located on Map 3, Lot 16A, per the plans provided, with one condition.

Vote:

By a unanimous vote of 5 – 0, the motion to approve the Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for the addition of a 104’ x 126’ Boat Storage Building to be located on Map 3, Lot 16A, per the plans provided, with one condition, was accepted.

Decision:

The Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit for the addition of a 104’ x 126’ Boat Storage Building to be located on Map 3, Lot 16A, per the plans provided, with one condition, was approved.

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

Amendment to a Subdivision – Add 4 Additional Lots to the Dezan 3-Lot Subdivision – Map 7, Lot 41 (Norton Ridge & Owl’s Nest Road) – Joseph Stanley, Surveyor/Representative; Lee M. and Gail M. Dezan, Property Owners/Applicant

Mr. Stanley was present for the review of the application, along with Mr. Dezan.

The application for an Amendment to a Subdivision contained the following information:

Name of Applicant: Lee Dezan

Name of Property Owner: Lee M. & Gail M. Dezan

Mailing Address: 35 North Ridge Road, Shapleigh, Maine 04076

Name of Authorized Agent

Land Surveyor/Plan Prep: LinePro Land Surveying, LLC

Joseph Stanley, PLS #2453

455 Main Street, Springvale, Maine 04083

207.636.4555

Land Information:

Location of Property: YCRD Book 11543, Page 57

Shapleigh Tax Map 7, Lot 41

Norton Ridge & Owl’s Nest Roads

Current Zoning: General Purpose District

No part of the property lies within 250 feet of the high-water mark of a pond or river.

Acreage to be developed: 10.79 acres

Number of Lots to be

Created: 4 Lots

Current Deed/ Subdivision

Restrictions: No restrictions proposed at this time. Current Deed 11543/57 (existing subdivision) a copy of the deed for this lot was provided to board members.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 28, 2019 Page 19 of 22

Water Bodies on Parcel: Yes

Flood Hazard Zone: No

General Information:

Current No. of Lots: 4

Existing in Development: Road

Method of Water Supply: Individual Wells

Method of Sewage

Disposal: Individual Septic Tanks

Method of Fire

Protection Proposed: Shapleigh Fire Dept., along with nearby hydrants.

Waiver Requests: Section 89-29A – Underground Utilities

Section 89-30A – Stone Monuments

Section 89-30D – Stormwater Drainage Plan

Section 89-36M – Sidewalks

Section 89-36 thru 37, & 39 thru 41 – Article XI – Street and Storm Drainage Design & Construction Standards

Also provided was a copy of the soils map for the area being reviewed, which showed the area was primarily Skerry fine sandy loam, with 0 to 8 % slopes and secondarily Brayton and Westbury very stony find sandy loams, 0 to 8% slopes. Approximately 28% of the property has an 8 to 15% slope. In addition, a map of the Shapleigh aquifers was provided, and on this map there was an indication of a brook that ran through the northeast corner of the proposed Lot 3.

Mr. Stanley provided a survey plan entitled ‘Plan Showing Division of Lot 3 – Dezan Subdivision – Revising Plan Book 268, Page 7, Shapleigh Tax Map 7, Lot 41, Owned by Lee F. Dezan, 35 Norton Ridge Road, Shapleigh, Maine 04076, Of Property Located on Norton Ridge Road & Owls Nest Road in Shapleigh, Maine’. The plan is dated March 21, 2019, drawn by Joseph L. Stanley, PLS #2453 of LinePro Land Surveying, LLC, of 455 Main Street, Springvale, Maine 04083. The plan depicts 4 lots; Lot #1 being 1.87 Acres and accessed by both Norton Ridge Road and Owls Nest Road, Lot #2 being 1.84 Acres and accessed by Norton Ridge Road; Lot #3 being 5.65 Acres and accessed by Owls Nest Road; and Lot #4 being 1.88 Acres and accessed by Norton Ridge Road. Lot #3 depicts Norton Brook and the delineation of where the Stream Protection District is located. Lots #2 and #4 have existing structures located on them, and Lot #4 has an existing septic system, whereas Lot’s #1, #2, and #3, show test pit locations. The location of the boundary lines for each lot is indicated, along with abutter’s and the location of both Norton Ridge and Owls Nest Road. Also depicted is the location of the well on Lot #4, Existing Utility Poles, Utility Lines, Stone Wall, Right-of-Way Lines, Wetland Edge, and Tree Line.

Addition Plan information:

• Plan Referenced Dezan Subdivision dated January 25, 2002, prepared by Middle Branch Professional Land Surveyors and recorded as Plan Book 268, Lot 7 at the YCRD.

• The topographic contour lines depicted on the plan were interpolated from the USGS Topographic Quadrangle “Mousam Lake”, dated 1983.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 28, 2019 Page 20 of 22

Roger A. began by asking Mr. Stanley to let the board know what they intended to do. Mr. Stanley, using a copy of the plan he provided to members, began by stating that they were presenting an amendment to the original 3-lot plan for the Dezan subdivision which was approved in 2002. Mr. Stanley was not sure if the board was going to look at this as a minor or major subdivision. He stated that he had seen subsequent divisions that were done more than five years after the original looked at as a minor, but he also knew it was likely Roger would want to review it as a major, because now the entire lot would be greater than 4 lots. He said he did not have an issue with it either way, he noted that he has seen different towns review it differently. Mr. Stanley stated that even different attorneys have viewed it differently. Roger stated that he believed it was now a major subdivision and would be reviewing it as such.

Mr. Stanley showed the board on the plan the original 3-lot subdivision and noted that Lot 3 on that subdivision plan was what was now being divided into four lots. He stated that Mr. Dezan presently had a home on what is being called Lot #4 and he had a garage on the proposed Lot #2.

Mr. Stanley stated that Norton Brook runs along the top part of Lot #3 and, therefore, there is a stream protection delineation noted on the plan. He showed the board the existing tree line and where the Dezan’s were envisioning putting a home. He said the spot was away from the brook. He stated that Ken Gardner mapped out the wetlands and did the suitability test for the three proposed lots that didn’t have an existing septic.

Mr. Stanley thought the plan was straight forward. He said he added some of the notes that were on the existing approval from 2002, and they asked for the standard waivers, such as monuments, sidewalks, and also the street storm drainage design, as that generally applies to a new road and they will be using the existing roads. He said that he would like to discuss utilities with the board, noting that lots #2 and #4 have existing overhead power and utility poles. He said he hadn’t discussed this with Mr. Dezan much. Mr. Dezan stated that for Lot #3 there was a utility pole within 140 feet of where the new home would be. He said he would like to minimize the cost for utilities. Steve F. asked if he was saying that the pole he would use for Lot #3 would be on the other side of Owls Nest Road? Mr. Dezan said, “Yes”. Note: The pole is noted on the plan provided.

Roger A. asked about fire protection. Mr. Stanley stated that within 3/10ths of a mile there was a significant hydrant. He thought it was sufficient for the fire department to access it for fire protection. Roger asked if it was not sufficient, were they going to use sprinklers, or would they put in a tank? Mr. Dezan asked if it was required? Roger said that it was required to have fire protection. He said if the fire department wants to ask for additional fire protection, because it is a major subdivision, such as a water holding tank or sprinkling the home, it would be required. Mr. Stanley stated that if it is decided that the hydrant isn’t sufficient, they would need to discuss it. Mr. Dezan asked for further explanation. Roger said that if the Fire Department feels the pond where the hydrant is, is not sufficient for fire protection for two additional lots, then you will need to have either a tank or a sprinkler system. Roger asked Mr. Dezan what he would like to do in that case. Madge B. noted they did not have to answer this evening.

Ann H. asked if the board had to determine if this was a major or minor subdivision. Steve F. said he was looking at it as if he bought this piece of land from Lee yesterday, and he came in here to divide it, then it would be a four lot subdivision. He asked if it was a major because Mr. Dezan still owned it? Roger A. said any division of land from an original lot, is going to trigger subdivision, this goes from three lots to 4 additional. Ann said this would change how the board goes forward, correct. Roger said it would not

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 28, 2019 Page 21 of 22

change much because he was not putting in a road. Steve agreed, that other than fee schedule it doesn’t change a lot, and he didn’t believe it changed anything with respect to fire protection either. Roger said that minor can be reviewed just like a major subdivision. Steve asked if it made sense to have all the existing houses on the road without sprinklers, now these new houses would be required to have sprinklers. Roger said it is because it is reviewed in subdivision, not as an individual lot. Steve thinks it should be up to the applicant. He said it made sense with a cluster subdivision because you have houses that are close together, one house burning could catch another on fire, so he could understand having a sprinkler system. Roger said he had an issue with sprinkler systems because if they are not maintained they won’t work. He said the board can’t force a homeowner to maintain them and the Fire Department doesn’t maintain them, so it’s a great idea new, but down the road it may not work. Mr. Stanley said he would speak with the Fire Chief and see what, if anything, he would like, and he will try to get his opinion in writing.

Roger A. said the only other thing he saw that was missing, was the board did not received the test pit information. Mr. Stanley said there was one on each lot, he must have just forgotten to provide the information.

Roger A. said with respect to topography, he would just stay with the USGS. Mr. Stanley said the contours on this plan were digitized from the previously approved plan.

Roger A. said he did not believe the additional lots would change the storm drainage design from the original approved plan. He said the overall area hasn’t changed. Mr. Stanley agreed, stating there are no major modifications being done. He said two lots have already been built on, we are just adding two building sites.

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

Roger A. stated a site inspection would be done on Tuesday, June 11th at 6:30 p.m. A public hearing will be held at 7:00 p.m. that evening. A notice to abutters will be mailed as well.

Roger A. stated the board needed the information for the test pits and a letter from the Fire Chief regarding fire protection.

Nothing further was discussed.

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

Growth Permits – There are Growth Permits Available

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

The Planning Board meeting ended at 8:35 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.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 28, 2019 Page 22 of 22

The next meeting will be held Tuesday, June 11, 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.

Respectfully submitted,

Barbara Felong, Land Use Secretary

planningboard@shapleigh.net