August 21, 2019  8:30 PM 
July 10, 2019
Other Notices
August 14, 2019
August 09, 2019
July 24, 2019
July 21, 2019
July 07, 2019
June 21, 2019
June 12, 2019
June 05, 2019
May 31, 2019

 Shapleigh Planning Board


Tuesday, June 25, 2019

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


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


The minutes from Tuesday, June 11, 2019 were accepted as read.

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


Conditional Use Permit – In-home Day Care for up to 12 Children – Map 4, Lot 10C (651 Back Road) – Tatiana Murphy, Applicant; Tatiana & Eddie Murphy, Property Owner(s)

Mrs. Murphy was present for the review of the application.

Provided along with the application, was an aerial picture of the property which showed the location of the existing home, and drawn on the picture was the word ‘well’ with an arrow pointing to its location; the words ‘Play area, septic & leachfield’ with an arrow pointing to a box depicting that area; a box containing the words ‘turn around’; and the numbers ‘651’ with an arrow pointing to the driveway. Also provided was a letter from the current owner, Loc Lam, which read as follows: “To whom it may concern, I Loc Lam and Beverly Lam at 651 Back Rd Shapleigh, ME, am selling our home to Eddie and Tatiana Murphy closing date to be June 28th 2019, we give them permission to do what they need to, to start the application process with the Town of Shapleigh for their in home daycare.”

In addition, Tatiana Murphy provided a letter stating the following:

To whom it may concern,

My family & I are going to be moving to Shapleigh this month. I currently have an in home daycare at our house that we live in now in Lebanon, ME. I have been licensed in the town of Lebanon for a few years now. I plan to reopen my in home daycare at our new house in Shapleigh. I have already contacted the State of Maine to notify them of our move. I will go through the process to get licensed at our new location pending the approval from the Town of Shapleigh. I will apply for a license through the State of Maine to care for 12 children ranging in age from 6 weeks through 12 years old.

The application detailed description of the project states: Open an in home daycare that will be licensed through the State of Maine. I will be licensed to care for 12 children.

Page 1 of 14

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 6/25/2019 Page 2 of 14

Roger A. opened the meeting by asking Mrs. Murphy what she intended to do. Mrs. Murphy stated that she just became a resident of Shapleigh and she wanted to open an in-home day care. She stated that she lived in Lebanon (Maine) and she had an in-home day care at that location, so she was just looking to move the business to her new home. She stated she would be licensed through the State of Maine, once she got approval from the Town. She said she had a long driveway and there was an area on site for a turnaround. She stated the State would allow her to be licensed for up to 12 children, ages 6 weeks to 12 years old, her hours of operation would be 6:00 a.m. thru 6:00 p.m., and there was an area that would be fenced in for the children to play in. Roger A. asked if she would be operating five days a week? She stated, “Yes, Monday through Friday”.

Madge B. stated that the board would be interesting in things such as lighting. She said the board did not care if Mrs. Murphy had extra lighting, and she noted she understood the house set back from the road; because the board worried about light shining onto the roadway or onto a neighboring property. Madge didn’t think this would be a problem in this location. Mrs. Murphy agreed that it was set back, and noted that there was existing lighting on both the garage and the front door, so parents would be able to see when picking up the children. Mrs. Murphy also added that there were trees on the front of the property, so it wasn’t wide open to the road.

Roger A. asked if there would be additional employees? Mrs. Murphy stated, “No, just myself”. Roger said that with being allowed to have 6 weeks to 12 years, he was asking about extra help, because he believed with young children, 6 weeks or so, if the older ones go outside they need to be supervised. Mrs. Murphy stated, “Absolutely. Yes, and so I have an infant son, and so we at our old house, I would take the children out. It really matters depending on schedules. Most of the time children are in school during the school year, so I can keep the children scheduled. I try to, when I take in children, I try to kind of keep them around the same age as well, like 2 year olds and above. I am licensed for 6 weeks but I try to take 1 ½ to 2, where they are down to one nap and they nap all at the same time of day, from like 12 to 3 o’clock, so that way everybody is on the same schedule. That way we are not having multiple nappers throughout the day. But yes, the children will be supervised at all times, so if a child is napping I would probably change outside time to a different time to accommodate their schedule.”

Roger A. read §105-40.1 Child day care, noting that Section C did not apply as it was for day-care centers. The applicable sections are as follows:

A. A child day-care home or center may be conducted as a conditional use.

B. A child day-care home shall be allowed in a single-family dwelling located on a residential lot that meets the minimum lot size requirement, providing care for up to 12 children, which charges for their care and which holds all legally required licenses and approvals by the Town of Shapleigh and the State of Maine.

(1) A child day-care home may also include part-time care. “Part-time” in this use shall mean four hours per day, per child.

(2) The parking area shall be large enough to accommodate the two spaces required for the dwelling unit, as well as two additional spaces minimum.

D. Outside play areas shall be buffered from adjoining uses, including neighboring properties, and the parking area(s), by appropriate fencing or plantings.

E. All outside play equipment shall meet the required front, side, and rear setback requirements.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 6/25/2019 Page 3 of 14

Mrs. Murphy pointed out that although she would be licensed for up to 12 children, it was unlikely she would have 12, because of the ratios mandated by the State based on the ages of the children. She said she would not be allowed to have 12 if she had infants. Roger A. noted there were several other in-home day cares on Back Road. Mrs. Murphy stated that she was aware of that.

Roger A. stated that the board would need to know what type of fencing and the size that she would be using. Roger said that she would meet the setback requirements because the house and play area were far from the road and lot lines, so it wasn’t an issue.

Roger A. asked if there were any other questions for Mrs. Murphy? There were none.

Roger A. stated that a site inspection would be scheduled for Tuesday, July 9th at 6:00 p.m., and a public hearing would be held at 7:00 p.m. A notice to abutters will go out as well.

Nothing further was discussed.


Best Possible Location – Replace Existing Structure – Map 18, Lot 19 (7 1st Street) – Jan & Linda Rajchel, Applicants; Rajchel Family Revocable Trust of 2014, Property Owner(s)

Mr. Rajchel was present for the review of the application.

Provided along with the application, was a draft plan depicting the existing building envelope, proposed building roof drip edge, proposed building foundation and proposed decks/stairs; a plan showing the boundary survey of all property located on First Street, prepared by Dana Libby of Corner Post Land Surveying Inc., dated 9/5/2000 (Note: there was no embossed seal noted on the plan); a boundary/existing conditions survey for Rajchel Family Revocable Trust of 2014, dated June 14, 2018, it was done by Corner Post Land Surveying Inc. but the preparer was not noted and there was no embossed seal, you could see the location of 1st Street, the boundary lines, abutter lines, right-of-way lines, the existing structure, parking area and location of the septic tank and disposal field; an enlarged view of the aforementioned plan whereby you could see the notations, which are the lot contains 10,455 Square Feet, there are square footage notations for the existing structures which are listed as: Deck & Stairs 525 sf and Building Area 1,425 sf; the current setbacks noted on the enlarged plan are: 14.98’ at the closest point to 1st Street, 6.31’ at the closest point to Map 18, Lot 20, 52.77 to the high water mark at the closest point, and to the proposed agreement line in question with Map 18, Lot 18, distances listed are 15.61 closest to 1st Street, 24.38, 23.94 and 29.21 the closest measured distance toward Mousam Lake. Also provided was the Building Height Calculation, showing that at the lowest ground grade the building height is 23.72 feet, and a grading & drainage plan, prepared by Jason VaFiades of Atlantic Resource Consultants.

In addition, provided was a copy of the Subsurface Wastewater Disposal System Application, drafted by John Large, SE #7, dated October 31, 1997, along with the Replacement System Variance Request for a 2 bedroom home. And a letter was provided from the applicants stating that Dana Libby, or his associates, were authorized to represent the Rajchel Family Revocable Trust of 2014 on matters concerning the Best Possible Location application.

The detailed description of the project is as follows:

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 6/25/2019 Page 4 of 14

Site Plan

See attached drawings. Exact location and distances from property lines currently undeterminable as boundary line agreements and long standing lines of occupation pending and/or being negotiated. As such, applicants are using tax assessment data for lot coverage information and calculations. Property purchased by applicant on August 8, 2017. Previous owners took the 30% expansion already, and existing building and decks have been permitted through compromise between previous owners and a previous CEO. Applicants seek to rebuild existing structure within the existing “footprint”. “Footprint” meaning the existing roof drip edge, decks, but excluding staircases as from above.

(The applicant provided a copy of the tax assessment documented by John E. O’Donnell & Associates.)

Town tax assessment indicates 0.4 Acres; 1 acres = 43,560 sq. feet; 0.4 acres = 17,424 sq. feet

Existing building “foot print” (roof drip line plus decks plus stairs)

Bldg. 1,425 sq. ft.

Deck 415 sq. ft. (approx.)

Stairs 110 sq. ft. (approx.)

Existing building & deck (1,425 sq. ft. + 415 sq. ft.) cover more than 10% of Shapleigh tax assessment land area.

1,840 sq. ft. (building + decks) divided by 17,424 sq. ft. = 10.6%

Existing building, decks and stairs will be removed and replaced “in-kind” to the best extent possible. Roof drip edge of replacement dwelling and decks will be within the former roof drip edge and deck areas. See attached proposed sketch.

Exact setbacks from property lines, whatever and wherever they are, will not change unless Planning Board decides to move the building from the structure’s current location under the Best Possible Location regulations. Resultant boundary lines will be likely determined based on long standing lines of occupation with respect to abutters.

By keeping location of the replacement dwelling and decks within the existing building envelope, the resultant non-conformance is made no better, and no worse, than existing non-conformance.

No more than 3 feet of fill will be brought in in order to raise the lowest elevation of the proposed replacement dwelling. The purpose of raising the lowest floor level is to mitigate existing water runoff and drainage issues from 1st Street. The adjacent grade will be increased as well to satisfy the “building height” definition.

Existing subsurface wastewater disposal system will be maintained in current locations, including existing drywell for grey water.

Existing dug well will be abandoned and filled in as a new drilled well has been installed.

To the extent possible, all disturbed areas facing Mousam Lake and the side areas will be replaced with grass to restore the land to its current condition and the disturbed areas along 1st Street will be replaced with asphalt and grass to restore the land to its current condition.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 6/25/2019 Page 5 of 14

Wood retaining wall located between applicant’s dwelling and abutter on Map 18, Lot 20 (Robert Moore) will be repaired and/or replaced.

To the extent possible, all disturbed areas will be restored to existing ground cover conditions. Grass where grass is, asphalt pavement where asphalt pavement is. No tree replanting is anticipated.

Roger A. began by stating the board received his plans and commented on what a nice presentation he put together, and noted he wished the board saw this more often. Roger asked Mr. Rajchel if he could brief the board on what he intended to do.

Mr. Rajchel began by stating he would like to read information to the board as it was easiest for him. He introduced himself and reiterated that the trust was the property owner, he and his wife were the trustees and that he was before the board for a best possible location for property located on Map 18, Lot 19. He stated that Theodore Hobbs originally subdivided the land about 100 years ago. He said that currently there were boundary lines that were not in agreement. Resolution of the differences between property lines between his property and abutters are still being negotiated. He said the boundary line issues should be resolved within the next few months, but the existing boundary lines are currently undeterminable. He said that they are currently working with the property owners of 5 1st Street and 11 1st Street.

Mr. Rajchel stated he was before the board to determine the best possible location of the existing building. He said the property was purchased on August 8, 2017. He said for this application he would be using the information from the Town Assessor, the current tax information for lot coverage calculations. Those are noted above, along with distances to the site lots lines, all as noted on the plan provided. Mr. Rajchel stated the blue line on the plan represented the front setback, and the yellow line represented the shoreland setback.

Mr. Rajchel stated that he was seeking to tear down and rebuild the existing structure within the existing footprint. He believed demolition and removal of debris to occur no earlier than March 2020. He stated debris materials would be brought to Simpsons, and the contractor doing the work will be certified to do work in the Shoreland District. He said completion of Phase I, which would be a weather-tight camp, is estimated to be no later than December 2020. Phase II which would be finishing the main floor interior, has an estimated completion date of September 2022. A walkout basement would likely remain unfinished until they semi-retire. He said the proposed total project duration is estimated to be 30 calendar months from the demolition date of March 2020 thru September 2022.

Mr. Rajchel stated that he would like a request to change the information provided to the board. He said that the paperwork said the previous owners took the maximum expansion of 30% allowed by code, this information was provided by CEO Mike Demers. He said that they now believe the 30% expansion may not have been obtained, so they request that the statement that the previous owner took the 30% expansion be changed to read ‘previous owners possibly took the 30% allowed expansion’.

Mr. Rajchel stated that the existing structure(s), decks, etc. have all been permitted through compromise between the previous owners and the previous Code Enforcement Officer. He said a portion of the deck facing the lake was recently removed to allow for well drilling rigs on the property and to run power to the drilled well. It has not been replaced. He said he is still shoring up remaining adjacent deck portions. He said the existing building decks and stairs will be removed and replaced in kind to the best extent

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 6/25/2019 Page 6 of 14

possible. He said the proposed replacement dwelling and decks will be located within the former roof drip edge and deck areas. Exact setbacks from property lines, whatever and wherever they are, will not materially change unless the Planning Board decides to move the existing building from the structures current location under the best possible location regulations and guidelines. He said by keeping the location of replacement dwelling and decks within the existing building footprint envelope, the resultant non-conformance is no better and no worse than the existing non-conformance. He said, no more than three feet of fill will be brought in order to raise the lowest elevation of the proposed replacement dwelling. The purpose of raising the lowest floor level is to mitigate water runoff and drainage issues from 1st Street. He said the current building height is 23.72’, however, they are requesting that the building permit be granted to allow for a maximum building height elevation of 35 feet, based on Shapleigh having a high snow load rating of 80 lbs. per square foot. The roof pitch will be maximized to the steepest possible, vs the current pitch, to minimize snow accumulation on the roof. He stated again he was proposing a building height of 35 feet.

Mr. Rajchel stated the existing subsurface water disposal system will be maintained in its current location. He will use the existing dry well for grey water disposal. He said the existing dry well is pre-existing to the installation of the current subsurface wastewater disposal system and is not referenced on the approved subsurface wastewater plans. He said he will eventually be seeking approval of a replacement grey water disposal system from Maine DES if and when the existing system fails.

Mr. Rajchel stated the existing dug well, near Mousam Lake, will be abandoned and filled in, as a new drilled well has been installed. He said to the extent possible, all the disturbed areas facing Mousam Lake and the side lot abutting areas will be replaced with grass to restore the land to its current condition, and the disturbed areas along 1st Street will be replaced with asphalt and grass to restore the land to its current condition. He stated that they did not anticipate having to replace any trees.

Mr. Rajchel stated that abutter’s, Rikki and Steven Foglio, are going to try to mitigate the water runoff from 1st Street with some type of water retention area, a so-called rain garden between the two properties.

Mr. Rajchel stated that with the application, he submitted an engineered preliminary plan for the rain garden and it includes a catch basin at 1st Street. He said they will try to resolve the water issue without the installation of a catch basin due to maintenance issues that catch basins create.

Mr. Rajchel stated there are two wood retaining walls on the property. He said one is located between this property and Map 18, Lot 18, which is the Foglio property, and may be replaced in kind where it currently is, once construction is completed. He said he wants to reserve the right to rebuild the existing wood retaining wall in the same location. He said location, height and length of the wall would remain the same. For the purposes of construction, the retaining wall will have to be taken down to grant access to construction equipment to the lake side of the property.

Mr. Rajchel stated that the wood retaining wall, located between this property and Map 18, Lot 20, owned by Robert Moore, will be repaired and / or replaced. He said Jeff Goodwin Excavation will be contacting CEO Demers on behalf of the owner of the abutting property for direction on how to shore up the wood retaining wall. The replacement wall that currently adjoins both properties will be constructed so the property line between the two properties will be marked. They are going to continue to work with Mr.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 6/25/2019 Page 7 of 14

Goodwin and the Moore family to try to coordinate plans. He said if needed in the future, they have given Dana Libby or his associates of Corner Post Land Surveying permission to represent them.

Mr. Rajchel asked if the board had any questions?

Roger A. stated that the board could not grant allowing the new structure to be 35 feet in height. He said that although the permit goes through the CEO, the 35 feet will still not happen, it is not allowed. He said that anything Mr. Rajchel wanted to change with his plans, knowing that, he might want to consider.

Roger A. said that because the existing structure is covering greater than 10 percent of the lot coverage at this time, there will be no additional lot coverage allowed, so there will be no additional enlargements whatsoever on the property. He said this was something else he wanted Mr. Rajchel to look at when doing the project. Mr. Rajchel asked if he could maintain the existing size? Roger stated that he could maintain the existing size. Roger asked if the deck shown on the plan, down by the water, was already there? Mr. Rajchel stated that it was. Roger said when looking at the wall, and that needing to be redone, he wasn’t sure if Mr. Rajchel was adding the deck to it. Mr. Rajchel stated that the deck was already there and asked if it could stay? Roger stated that if it was there, then it could stay.

Roger A. stated the board would schedule a site visit for 6:30 p.m. for Tuesday, July 9th. A notice to abutters will be mailed as well.

Mr. Rajchel stated that there was a turtle nest on the front of the property and it is staked out with four stakes, he asked members if they could avoid that area. He said there were a lot of divots in the grass, so he wanted members to be careful as they walked, and the stairs are also a bit of a hazard and should be avoided.

Roger A. stated again that the height of the building will be regulated, and 35 feet will not be allowed per the ordinance (§105-4 ‘Nonconformance’). CEO Demers agreed that the 35 feet height was not allowed. Roger said he wanted him aware, so he would know what to expect down the road. Mr. Rajchel stated that best possible location didn’t have to do with the height, he understood that.

Mr. Rajchel asked if he should be there for the site visit. Roger A. stated it would be nice, so he could answer any questions the board might have.

Steve F. asked the board how they wanted him to handle the next meeting to review this application? The board members thought that since he was a direct abutter, he should step off the board for the final review. Madge B. said he could sit in the room, but if there was any problem because Steve was interrupting, then Roger A., as Chair, could ask that he not speak. Steve said he had no issue with the project and would be happy to not attend the review if the board preferred. Madge said that he was welcome to be there in case the board had a question for him, but it would be preferable if he did not sit at the table during the review. Steve said that was fine, it was all he wanted to know. Roger agreed he had no issue with him being in the audience.

Nothing further was discussed.


Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 6/25/2019 Page 8 of 14

Conditional Use Permit – Keepin It Local – Review Plan Approval & Building Permit – Map 18, Lot 30 (130 Emery Mills Road) – Mary Letourneau, Applicant

Board members, at the previous Planning Board meeting on Tuesday, June 11th, discussed the fact that the approval for Keepin It Local was for the existing structure to be used for the business. After permit approval, the applicant had the existing structure demolished and the board was concerned that the new structure may not be the same size or in the same location as the original, which might affect stormwater runoff, parking and the number of patrons allowed. The board agreed to look at the approval at this evenings meeting and any other additional information to see whether or not the application as approved needed to be amended.

This evening provided by Joseph Stanley, of LinePro Land Surveying, who drafted the original sketch plan which depicted the existing structures on site, a conceptual parking plan, entrance and exits onto Route 109, and the proposed expansion of the existing structure, provided a new sketch plan dated June 25, 2019, which showed the foundation for the new structure to be within a foot of the original foundation and proposed additions to the original structure. Mr. Stanley stated to Barbara F. that he believed the parking plan remained as originally approved.

The Findings of Fact for the application was provided to members, the findings are as follows:

1. The applicant is Mary Letourneau of 1110 of Milton Mills Road, Acton, Maine 04001.

2. The owner of Shapleigh Tax Map 18, Lot 30 (130 Emery Mills Road) is Paul J. Letourneau of 130 Emery Mills Road, Shapleigh, Maine 04076. There is a Purchase & Sales Agreement between Mrs. Letourneau and Mr. Letourneau (not related) with an Offer Date of October 29, 2018.

3. The property is located in the General Purpose District and according to the assessor, the property contains 1.3 acres.

4. The applicant is before the board for a Conditional Use Permit to relocate Keepin’ it Local from 120 Emery Mills Road to 130 Emery Mills Road.

5. Received was a letter from property owner Paul Letourneau stating Mary Letourneau had permission to move forward with the conditional use permit; a sketch plan depicting the existing structure, septic & leachfield location, and arrows depicting how the traffic will flow on the property; a sketch plan depicting the existing structure and driveway on the property; an aerial photo of the property; an aerial photo of the property including distances from the existing structure to the side lot lines and Emery Mills Road; Subsurface Waste Water Disposal System Application for a 3 bedroom home, drafted by John E. Large, SE #7, dated 11/4/11; and a copy of the Purchase & Sale Agreement between Mary Letourneau and Paul Letourneau with an Offer Date of October 29, 2018.

6. Received was a sketch plan drafted by LinePro Land Surveying, LLC. The plan depicted in addition to the existing structures on site, a conceptual parking plan, entrance and exits onto Route 109, and the

proposed expansion of the existing structure. Also depicted were 33 parking places, and how the traffic will flow, including a separate lane for drive-thru traffic.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 6/25/2019 Page 9 of 14

7. Received were two (2) - 11 x 17” prints entitled Keepin it Local - Proposed Improvements – Drainage Study – 130 Emery Mills Road, Shapleigh Maine’. Print D1 noted the following, “Work performed by Carl V. Beal is limited to stormwater drainage only. Survey information was provided by LinePro Land Surveying, LLC”. Print D2 noted the following, “Work performed by Carl V. Beal is limited to stormwater drainage only. Building addition, new parking and traffic pattern, and other improvements were provided by others”.

8. Received was an email to the PB dated December 11, 2018 at 11:27 AM from Anthony Fontaine of the MDOT, it stated the proposal for two separate access points is acceptable. He concluded because everything meets or exceeds the minimum standard for a major collector highway, further review by others here at Maine DOT is not required and I will issue the permit as proposed (two separate access points, one for entry and one for exit, each 24’ wide). He noted that the town was free to impose their own requirements but the proposal satisfies State statutes.

9. Received was a letter from Carl V. Beal, P.E. #5013 of Civil Consultants, regarding the Stormwater Drainage Study for the new location of Keepin It Local, that being 130 Emery Mills Road. The letter read in part that post-development runoff will flow in the same direction as pre-development. A new Stone Level Spreader will be installed at the SE corner of the parcel to control the increase in runoff from the new impervious surfaces and to reduce the potential for erosion of the existing Rte. 109 swale and abutting properties. In conclusion, construction of the new Keepin It Local facility will result in no negative impacts due to stormwater runoff to downstream properties, tributaries, or Mousam Lake.

10. Received was a letter from Fire Chief Duane Romano, dated January 15, 2019, which read in part as follows: As the Chief of the Shapleigh Fire Department, it is my recommendation that one of the following be implemented for fire suppression: 1) A 20,000 gallon cistern system be placed on the property, or, a sprinkler be installed. Repairs and maintenance of the sprinkler system shall be the responsibility of the property owner. The Shapleigh Fire Department will check the water level of the cistern at their discretion and add water if necessary. Please have the applicant contact me with their decision.

11. Received was a Warranty Deed from Walter G. Rand and Clara M. Rand to Donna M. Ruopp and George M. Ruopp, Book 4003, Page 189, describing Map 18, Lot 30, containing highlighted information regarding road frontage that being 151 feet, dated December 16, 1982; a replanting plan which denotes areas of grass to be planted and 24 – 6’ Arborvitae’s between the parking area and adjacent residential property; an updated Proposed Improvements Drainage Study, which depicted additional water management information on page D2, and added a page D3, which describes how the Level Spreader will manage a 50-year storm event; and provided was the Maine Erosion and Sediment Control BMP guidelines for a level spreader from 2016.

12. The Detailed Description of the Project is as follows:

The following is a description of the proposed project for moving Keeping’ it Local from its current location at 120 Emery Mills Road to 130 Emery Mills Road.

When purchased we would like to add on to the existing structure:

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 6/25/2019 Page 10 of 14

● creating a larger kitchen, dining area and retail space

● outdoor dining space

● parking area to the right of the building and behind to accommodate 60 seats

(30 spaces needed for customers, employees and retail space)

● a farmer’s porch onto the driveway side and back of the building

● drive thru on the left side of the building

● upgrade septic to include chambers and grease trap

● upgrade electrical and plumbing

We would also be looking to add in beer, wine and liquor and to expand on our menu to include dinners and brunches.

Operating hours would ‘be’ up to 24 hours depending on baking.

Serving hours would be between 5 am and 11 pm.

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

14. 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 conditions.

15. A notice was mailed to all abutters within 500 feet of the property on November 14, 2018. Meetings were held on November 13, 2018, November 27, 2018, January 8, 2019 and January 22, 2019. A site inspection was not necessary as members were aware of the location.

16. The Planning Board unanimously agreed to approve the Conditional Use Permit to relocate Keepin’ it Local to Map 18, Lot 30, per the plans provided with conditions.

17. The conditions of approval are:

1) The revegetation plan, including the planting of grass and arborvitae, shall be completed prior to the Occupancy Permit being issued, no later than October 1, 2019.

2) The hours of operation are 24 hours a day for baking, and 4 AM thru midnight for serving customers, 7 days a week.

3) The State Fire Marshal shall make certain there is adequate water supply to meet the demands of the proposed use and for fire protection purposes prior to construction, which includes fire suppression for the building.

4) The Alternate Code Enforcement Officer shall make certain there is adequate provision for the disposal of all wastewater and solid waste prior to issuing an Occupancy Permit.

Roger A. stated that he spoke with Alternate CEO, Norm Hutchins regarding the tear down and rebuild of the structure for Mary Letourneau’s application. He said that when CEO Hutchins approved the demo, he had no plans to look at whatsoever. He approved it based on Mrs. Letourneau’s statement that nothing was being changed, that everything would remain the same. CEO Hutchins said he was waiting for plans to come in before he issued the building permit. Roger said that is what he emailed members, this information, about an hour after he spoke with CEO Hutchins. The email read in part as follows:

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 6/25/2019 Page 11 of 14

Good Morning all,

Just spoke to Norm Hutchins on the issuance of permits. He told me that applicant told him that there would be no change to square footage or placement. He said he did not have print or CU Permit before him so he took their word for it and issued permit. He will now be asking Mike for this info. In other towns he has worked he said return to PB for this change wasn't done due to no change to square footage or location. 

Roger A. said the new foundation was larger than the pre-existing, because of the approved additions to the original structure. Madge B. said, “OK”. Roger said because the applicant stated the new building would be the same as what was approved, CEO Hutchins did not feel this had to come back to the Planning Board.

Madge B. stated that because CEO Hutchins has no plans for the board to review, the record should state that Roger A. spoke with him and that is what he told us, that there are no changes to the original approved plan. She stated that until the board has a permit to look at, the board doesn’t have anything to review. Roger said that he did not know if CEO Hutchins had anything himself at this time. CEO Demers stated that he did not believe he did. Roger said that at this point in time, CEO Hutchins hadn’t even seen the Planning Board approval, so he issued a Demo permit without having anything before him. Madge asked if he now has the board’s decision? Roger told CEO Hutchins that any time there is a change to what the Planning Board approves, it should come back as an amendment, due to the fact the file has to be amended to say this is what is taking place, vs what was initially approved. CEO Hutchins told Roger that he would wait to see what the Planning Board decided before he did anything further. Madge stated that she did not see that the board had to make any further decisions, if they are doing exactly what the board approved. She said that the board is basically looking at the change of use, the use is what they said they were going to do. She said unless they are going to change the parking, and unless we have a reason to think they are, she did not see that the board has to do anything further. She believed the minutes should show that the board brought it back up, that the board has no reason to change what they have submitted, and for the record, the demolition permit has been issued and we are aware of it. She did not believe the board had to amend the conditional use, unless there is something to amend, and she did not see that the board had anything to amend, based on all the information.

Maggie M. added that at least the board had a copy of the amended plan, showing the location of the ‘new’ structure. Roger A. agreed. Maggie thought that is what the board needed for the record. Madge B. noted the plan was not different. Maggie stated, “Other than approving existing building being enlarged. Now that that is cleared up, it should be good”.

Roger A. stated that Joe Stanley had spoken with him, stating that the new building was within a foot of the original plan. Roger said it was an oversight that they removed the existing structure without telling the board they were going to put up a new structure.

Steve F. asked if the initial approval had side line setbacks? Roger A. stated that there were setbacks on originally approved plan. Madge B. said again, she did not see anything to amend.

Maggie M. thought it might be a good idea in the future, noting there are so many things that go with a permit, whether it be conditional or otherwise, because people don’t know if they change something extreme it has to come back, perhaps they need to be told they would have to come back. Steve F. agreed. Maggie said that if they make a change, they need to be told it has to come back before the board. Steve

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 6/25/2019 Page 12 of 14

said not to the use, but to the building. Roger A. disagreed, stating that any change to the whole project with the initial approval. Steve said for example, if the Town of Shapleigh wanted to put a new deck in the back, would they go to the Planning Board or the CEO? Maggie thought they would go to Mike (CEO), she was talking about something with an approval. Roger said that if it is a CU permit and it is putting a deck on the back, he thought it would come back before the board. He said that whatever the building is, if an applicant is before the board for a conditional use permit, that is a change to the permit probably.

Steve F. stated that based on this, CEO Demers should have a list of every conditional use that has been issued in the town. Roger A. said, “Which he should have”. Steve said, “So that any time, any applicant comes in with any building permit, he’s going to send them back to the Planning Board. Unless the conditional use has been out of date for over a year”. Roger A. said, “Yes, if it has been out of business for over a year”. CEO Demers said that if we do that, theoretically, with change of use over 25%, who determines the change of use or the 25%? Roger said the CEO is going to say, you are changing it more than 25% or any other processes not associated with the business. CEO Demers said that then there are instances when it doesn’t come back to the board. Roger A. read §105-73.B(2) “No changes shall be made in any approved conditional use without approval of the change by the Planning Board”.

Madge B. stated, “We should be reviewing things that involve uses, and 2, that involve the applicable standards. The use will not have, the use will conserve, the use is consistent. This is a conditional use permit. I don’t think it should be a building permit. I think your reading goes too far”. Roger A. stated, “I am looking at it as being a conditional use that any time you change that”. Madge agreed that if you change the use it comes back. Roger said, “If you change the size”. Madge agreed, 25%.

Madge B. stated that she had no issue if you change the use, or expand the structure, change its nature, but if it isn’t a change of use. CEO Demers stated that he wanted to talk about another hypothetical, going back to the day care. He said if the applicant is permitted for a day care for up to 12 children, and she’s got a 12 x 12 room where she takes care of six kids. If she comes back to him because she wants to take care of up to 12 kids and, therefore, she wants to add another 12 x 12 room to be able to take care of 12 kids; she has a conditional use for up to 12 kids, but does that addition of the 12 x 12 room, change the use? She is already approved for 12 kids, does it matter what the structure is, as long as it meets the dimensional requirements? Steve F. said if the board is basing the approval on the standards in the chapter, the board could easily say that if there are changes to be made to the property or to the use that affect those standards, than they should come back. Madge stated that she liked that. Steve said that they had talked about the 25%, this simply says ‘a conditional use which existed prior to the effective date of this chapter may not be changed’. He did not believe a floor increase of 25% or new materials or processes, apply to anything that was not in effect before the effective date. Madge thought he was probably correct. Steve said, that item (2) does not talk about uses that existed prior to the effective date, it states ‘No changes shall be made in any approved conditional use without approval of the change by the Planning Board’. He felt that was a broad statement. He thought the board should talk about this in a workshop and clarify it. He thought that maybe it should say, ‘no changes to the use based on the parameters set forth that the board reviewed’. CEO Demers asked if he was talking about changing the ordinance. Steve stated that he was talking about cleaning up the gray area. Steve believed the board wants the same thing, and if the board has a difference of opinion, then what about the confusion for the general population. Barbara F. thought scheduling a working for possible changes to the ordinance would

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 6/25/2019 Page 13 of 14

be a great idea. She stated they could schedule one in the fall, when the board wasn’t as busy. She asked that members be noting what they might like to change, and ideas on what would work best.

Steve F. wasn’t sure if anyone in town ever asked the board to change an ordinance. Barbara F. stated that they had, typically it was business owners. Roger A. agreed, noting signage was changed. Barbara added that lot coverage was also changed. Roger said that there had been some ideas regarding things such as pigs not being allowed next to someone’s house, townspeople have brought up proposed changes but not often.

Steve F. said if Mrs. Letourneau was going to change what she was going to do, that would have been a problem, but the board has proof that she is not, so it is not an issue. He said if the applicant for a day care wants to change a bouncy house to something different, he did not feel it was an issue. Madge B. thought it was a good idea to hold a workshop to discuss this. Madge said at the last meeting it was also brought up why the board was reviewing walls? She said she would prefer not to have to do it. Roger A. stated that the board was reviewing walls because the Town adopted Shoreland Zoning. Madge said if the board did not have to do that, she would like to know. Madge asked Barbara F. if she could get information regarding this. Barbara thought it depended on the size of the wall, because the board is looking at earth moving when they review a wall.

CEO Demers stated that in Waterboro it says the ‘Planning Board or its designee’ and the board can designate whoever they want to review it. CEO Demers said that is how that can be changed. Madge thought that Roger A. thought the board adopted something and they can’t change it. Roger said that if the language is changed with respect to Shoreland Zoning, the DEP needs to approve the change. He noted that you can get more stringent than the DEP but you cannot get lesser than their requirements. Madge asked who they need to talk to? CEO Demers stated that they were short staffed right now. He said if you go back to the original Chapter 1000 from the DEP, it may already say ‘or its designee’. He said Shapleigh may have removed it, he was not sure. Steve F. asked how that would work in the case of a wall, would they go to the Planning Board and then we would send them to you. CEO Demers stated that no, it would be pre-determined either / or could do it. Madge asked how the board could find out what the original was. Barbara said they just had to look it up. CEO Demers stated that he had a copy. Madge thought it would be good to look at it at a workshop. Barbara agreed, and said again that they might want to get through the next few meetings first, as they will be very busy. CEO Demers agreed.

Roland L. stated that he thought the board might see an increase with the number of applicants for wall repair with the projected drain-down of Mousam Lake, due to the work to be done on the dam. The lake drawdown may begin on October 1st and would be drawn down from 1 to 2 feet lower than the usual seasonal drawdown, by October 15th. This is to do the work on the dam. He said the work on the dam is supposed to be completed by November 22nd. At that time the level will be allowed to return to its normal seasonal low. He said the message is getting out, so the board may see an increase in the number of applications in the fall. Madge B. thought it was good for the town for people to do necessary repairs.

Roland L. said he only partially agreed with Madge’s position with respect to not having the board review the replacement of retaining walls. He said because often times this involves more than just the wall, specifically removing trees and tree roots, which are beneficial. He said it depends on who does the site assessment, you could have someone more or less lenient. He believed when the board goes collectively,

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 6/25/2019 Page 14 of 14

one person’s leniency vs one person’s stringency, can be offset or you can come up with compromise. CEO Demers agreed that having more eyes takes the responsibility off just one person. Madge said regardless it won’t change this fall. Roland said that he could not think of one activity, except for road runoff, that has a greater impact on the lake than walls. Madge agreed. Roland said if you cruise on the lake, you see areas of erosion around walls, behind walls, walls that are falling over. Steve F. didn’t think the wall created the erosion. CEO Demers stated that he was correct, but repairing the wall is going to stop it. Roland agreed that it could contain it, if done properly. Roland noted that in some instances that walls have degraded to the point that water just runs past it, but if it were intact, it would stop the runoff.

The board agreed a workshop was needed to talk about walls, conditional uses, etc.

Nothing more was discussed.



Amendment to a Subdivision – Add Additional Lots for a Total of 6 – Dezan Subdivision – Map 7, Lot 41 (Norton Ridge & Owl’s Nest Road) – Joseph Stanley, Surveyor / Representative; Lee Dezan, Property Owner

Board members signed the Findings of Fact for the Dezan Subdivision that was approved on June 11, 2019. The board has received the recorded Mylar and paper copy, with the book and page for the approved subdivision.


Growth Permits

There are growth permits available.


The Planning Board meeting ended at 8:25 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, July 9, 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