August 21, 2019  8:18 PM 
July 24, 2019
Other Notices
August 14, 2019
August 09, 2019
July 21, 2019
July 10, 2019
July 07, 2019
June 21, 2019
June 12, 2019
June 05, 2019
May 31, 2019

 Shapleigh Planning Board

Minutes

Tuesday, July 9, 2019

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

Ann Harris sat in as a regular member this evening.

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

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

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

Public Hearing began at 7:00 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 public hearing.

Roger A. asked Mrs. Murphy to let the board know what she wanted to do. Mrs. Murphy stated that she wanted to open a day care in her home which was located on Back Road. She stated that she was a licensed day care provider in Lebanon but she moved to Shapleigh. She said she would be licensed by the State of Maine for up to 12 children, the day care would be on the first floor of her home, and there would be a playground on her property, which is 300 feet off the road. She noted at the last meeting the board wanted to know how far the home was from back road.

Roland L. asked Mrs. Murphy if she was planning on having any signage? Mrs. Murphy stated that she would like a sign, but noted that other day cares on the road did not have a sign, so she wasn’t sure she could have one. Roger A. stated that signage is handled by the Code Enforcement Officer and it is allowed.

Roger A. asked if anyone had any questions? There were none. Roger stated the only items he saw that needed to be addressed were that there needed to be a handrail on the stairs because the stairs were so wide, and there needed to be a gate in front on the fireplace and pellet stove at all times. He also thought the driveway needed additional fill added, so there would be ample room to turn around. Mrs. Murphy stated, “OK”.

Roger A. asked about the children’s ages she would be having. Mrs. Murphy stated, “6 weeks to 12 years”. Roger said there would need to be two providers per State regulations. Mrs. Murphy stated, it depended on how many children she had in each age group. Roger stated that State regulations state that 6 weeks to 2 years old need 2 providers and you would only be allowed to have 8 children. Mrs. Murphy stated that she would not have 12 children. Roger stated that when you go to ‘2 years old to 5 years old’,

Page 1 of 24

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – July 9, 2019 Page 2 of 24

you need 2 providers for 12 children. Mrs. Murphy stated again that she would not have 12 children. Mrs. Murphy stated that she would be operating on her own. Roger said that being the case, she would only have 8 children in this age group. Mrs. Murphy stated, “Right. If I only have children 6 weeks to 2 years old I would only be allowed to have 4 children on my own, which I will not have 4 infants”. She said the ages she would have would range between a year old to school age, 9 to 12 years old. She stated she could include her two children, because the State rules say that if your children are over the age of 3 or 4, they do not have to be included in the ratio. She said her children did not have to be included, so she would have eight children in her care on her own, two of which would be her own, so she would have six children for licensing. Roland L. asked how old her twins were? She stated they were 6. Roland stated the board was looking at a copy of the state regulations. Mrs. Murphy stated that the rules can be confusing, they break it down in three different tiers, 6 weeks to 2, 2 to school age which could be 5 or 6, and then school age which is technically 5 or 6 up until 12.

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

The public hearing was closed at 7:05 p.m.

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

The minutes from Tuesday, June 25, 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 final review of her application.

Previously 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.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – July 9, 2019 Page 3 of 24

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.

Note: Prior to this evening’s meeting was a site inspection. Also, Mr. & Mrs. Murphy are now owners of the property.

Roger A. opened the review by asking Mrs. Murphy once again to state what she wanted to do for the record. Mrs. Murphy stated she wanted to open up an in-home day care on Back Road. She stated she would be licensed by the State for up to 12 children, from the ages of 6 weeks to 12 years old. She said there was a fenced in play area for the children, the home was 300 feet off the road, and there was plenty of space for cars to back up and for drop off and pick-up. She said the day care will be on the 1st floor.

Roger A. asked if there were any questions for Mrs. Murphy? There were not. Roger began the review of the pertinent ordinances.

§105-17 – Land Uses. Roger A. stated that the reason this was before the board was because under this section day care requires a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Board.

§105-40.1 - Child day care. Roger stated Section C did not apply as it was for day-care ‘centers’, which provided care for 13 or more children.

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.

Roger A. stated that this home being reviewed has had an approved day care in the past, but it had been greater than a year since it was open, so a new permit was required.

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

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

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – July 9, 2019 Page 4 of 24

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. There is no vegetation being cleared and it is not near any pond.

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

3) The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Roger A. stated that it is. The Comprehensive Plan wants small home based businesses in town.

4) Traffic access to the site is safe. Roger A. stated that it is.

5) The site design is in conformance with all municipal flood hazard protection regulations. Roger A. stated that it was, this location is not in a flood zone.

6) Adequate provision for the disposal of all wastewater and solid waste has been made. Roger A. stated there is a State approved subsurface wastewater disposal system in existence.

7) Adequate provision for the transportation, storage and disposal of any hazardous materials has been made. Roger A. stated there was 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 this is not applicable because there is no change to the existing structures on site or to the existing landscaping.

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

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

11) The provisions for buffer strips and on-site landscaping provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development, such as noise, glare, fumes, dust, odors and the like. Roger A. stated the existing home sets off the road and away from neighboring properties. There is existing vegetation that will not be removed.

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

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

1) Add hand rail to the front steps for safety, due to the width of the stairs.

2) Maintain fireplace and pellet stove barriers at all times to protect the children.

3) Add child safety gate at the base of the stairs going to the second floor.

4) Add additional gravel to the parking area, to make it easier to turn around on site.

5) Hours of operations will be 6 am to 6 pm, Monday thru Friday.

6) State requirements under 10-144 C.M.R., Chapter 33, Section 8: Provider-Child Ratios and Supervision, Section A ‘Provider-child ratios.’ shall be complied with.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – July 9, 2019 Page 5 of 24

Mrs. Murphy stated that looking at this section, under the mixed ages, the tier she would be working under would be 1 Provider: 3 children under 2 years old + 3 children 2 to 5 years old + 2 children over 5 years old.

Maggie M. made the motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit for an in-home day care licensed by the State of Maine for up to 12 children to be located on Shapleigh Tax Map 4, Lot 10C, with the above stated 6 conditions. Roland L. 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. By a vote of 4 – 0, the motion passed unanimously.

Roger A. stated that any signage would be permitted thru the Code Enforcement Officer, as well as hand rail requirements. Roger stated an approval letter would be mailed.

Nothing further was discussed.

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

The Findings of Facts

1. The applicant is Tatiana Murphy of 651 Back Road, Shapleigh, Maine 04076. The owner(s) of Shapleigh Tax Map 4, Lot 10C (651 Back Road), are Tatiana & Eddie Murphy.

2. The property is located in the General Purpose District and according to the assessor, the property contains 5 acres.

3. The detailed description of the project is as follows: Open an in-home day care that will be licensed through the State of Maine. I will be licensed for up to 12 children.

4. Received 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.

5. Received was a letter from the previous 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.” Note: The Murphy’s as of the approval are the legal owners of the property.

6. Received was a letter of intent from Tatiana Murphy, owner/operator of the proposed day care, it read as follows: 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.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – July 9, 2019 Page 6 of 24

7. The board reviewed Zoning Ordinance §105-40.1, ‘Child day care’ and the board concurred the application met all the standards imposed.

8. 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.

9. A notice was mailed to all abutters within 500 feet of the property on June 26, 2019. Meetings were held on June 25, 2019 and July 9, 2019. A site inspection was done and a public hearing was held on July 9, 2019, prior to the meeting.

10. The Planning Board unanimously agreed to approve the Conditional Use Permit to open an in-home day care for up to 12 children, to be located on Map 4, Lot 10C, per the plans and information provided, with six conditions.

11. The conditions of approval are:

1) Add hand rail to the front steps for safety, due to the width of the stairs.

2) Maintain fireplace and pellet stove barriers at all times to protect the children.

3) Add child safety gate at the base of the stairs going to the second floor.

4) Add additional gravel to the parking area, to make it easier to turn around on site.

5) Hours of operations will be 6 am to 6 pm, Monday thru Friday.

6) State requirements under 10-144 C.M.R., Chapter 33, Section 8: Provider-Child Ratios and Supervision, Section A ‘Provider-child ratios’, shall be complied with.

Motion:

After careful consideration and a review of all material presented to the Board, including the review of the Zoning Ordinances §105-40.1 ‘Child day care’, and §105-73, Section G, ‘Standards applicable to conditional uses’ a motion was made on July 9, 2019 to approve the Conditional Use Permit for an in-home day care for up to 12 children, on Shapleigh Tax Map 4, Lot 10C, per the plans and information provided, with six conditions.

Vote:

By a unanimous vote of 4 – 0, the motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit for an in-home day care for up to 12 children, on Shapleigh Tax Map 4, Lot 10C, per the plans and information provided, with six conditions, was accepted.

Decision:

The Conditional Use Permit for an in-home day care for up to 12 children, on Shapleigh Tax Map 4, Lot 10C, per the plans and information provided, with six conditions, was approved.

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

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – July 9, 2019 Page 7 of 24

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 final review of the application.

Previously 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:

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%

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – July 9, 2019 Page 8 of 24

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.

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. asked Mr. Rajchel to state what he wanted to do for the record. Mr. Rajchel stated that they were going to tear down the existing structure and replace it so it is within the existing building footprint; the footprint being defined as the roof drip edge plus decks, excluding stairs. He said it would be a two phase project, phase 1 would be a weathertight camp, phase 2 would be to finish the interior. He felt the minutes from June 25th stating what he intended to do, were accurate, but he stated he could read those details again if the board wanted him to. Roger did not feel it was necessary. Roger A. asked if there were any concerns regarding Mr. Rajchel? There were no comments.

Roger A. stated the board did a site inspection this evening, on site the only issue he had was being concerned with how he was going to hold back the retaining wall, and how the front wall was going to be held while removing the existing foundation and putting the new one in place. Mr. Rajchel stated that was why they hired general contractors, he stated he was not a contractor, but he trusted that they knew what they were doing. He stated he was going to keep the neighbors septic tanks intact. He stated that the neighboring property, Mr. Moore, has stated that they are replacing their portion of the retaining wall

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – July 9, 2019 Page 9 of 24

before this winter. He said it was his understanding that Jeff Goodwin Excavating was supposed to discuss this with the current CEO, Mike Demers. He said he wasn’t sure if he has spoken with him yet or not. CEO Demers stated that he had. Ann H. asked if he was going to take the entire wall down? CEO Demers stated that he was looking to have it go along with this project, so they could do it all at the same time. Ann stated, “So it is all going to come down”. CEO Demers stated that if everything worked out, probably. Roland L. thought it was the most logical thing to do, instead of trying to do it piecemeal with the material proposed, the interlocking pieces for structure and strength. CEO Demers agreed. Ann noted there was a tree between the wall and the house that would have to come down. Roland thought it was an Ash tree and he agreed. Roland noted that in the presentation it was stated that no trees would come down, but at the site inspection the board members noted two trees that would have to be removed and replanted. Roger agreed, stating there was one on each side of the house.

Mr. Rajchel wanted to know what the definition of a tree was? Roger A. stated they were both trees, there was no way they were not trees. Mr. Rajchel said he believed there was a rule that they had to be six feet high and 2 inches in diameter or is a shrub a tree? Roger said they had to be replanted with a tree six feet in height. Mr. Rajchel asked again what the definition of a tree was? Roland L agreed with Roger they were trees. Mr. Rajchel stated that he felt if the surveyor thought it was a tree it would have been on the drawing.

Roger A. looking under §105-15 ‘Definitions’, read “TREE – A woody perennial plant with a well-defined trunk(s) at least two inches in diameter at 4.5 feet above the ground, with a more or less definite crown, and reaching a height of at least 10 feet at maturity”. Mr. Rajchel stated that he didn’t know the measurements at 4.5 feet. He said if it had to come down because of construction, it was the contractors call. Roger stated that they had to be replaced and they could not be any further from the water than the existing. He said they can be closer, but no further. Roger said he would have to put two trees in, at a minimum of 6 feet in height from the base to the top. Roland L. stated this was in the ordinance. Mr. Rajchel didn’t know why the surveyor didn’t put it on the plan. Ann H. agreed, she did know why either because typically they do. Roland said on the plans provided, because they are so small, perhaps they are on there, the board could not tell. Mr. Rajchel said they were not on there. Roland said that by definition they are trees.

Roger A. stated that the board realizes that there is a boundary in dispute, the building itself he would like to see it moved toward Mr. Foglio’s house, but because of the septic location he thought it would be hard to accomplish. He also didn’t want it to affect the dry wells. Roger said realizing the building was already exceeding the 10% lot coverage it cannot grow any larger than it is. Mr. Rajchel asked if he was talking about the existing building? Roger said yes, the existing structures.

Roland L. said he was concerned about the lack of clarity on the lot line location. He said when it is resurveyed, if Mr. Rajchel finds out he is encroaching on his neighbor’s property, that would be the applicants problem, but the board would hate to see that. Mr. Rajchel stated they purchased the property August 8, 2017. He said the abutters, Robert Moore and his family, we have a good understanding by adverse possession where that property line is. He stated that they have been working with Mr. Foglio for almost 2 years, and this is the closest they have come to an agreement, as to what it is. He stated that they deliberately had not gone for a best possible location until they got that, they don’t want to build until they know.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – July 9, 2019 Page 10 of 24

Mr. Rajchel stated he was surprised the abutters, the Foglio’s, were able to build without a clear understanding where the boundary was as far as setbacks go. He said they have the same problem, he does. He stated that he felt confident within the next six months they would have an agreement in writing.

Ann H. asked if the board should get something in writing before they approve the plan? Roger A. felt ok with the plan presented, the house is setting on the parcel, it’s just the boundaries that are in question. Mr. Rajchel stated that him building the new building in the exact same footprint, they would not be making it any worse off or better off than it currently is. He said they can’t go closer to the water, although they would like to. He said they can’t go left or right, as they would squeeze toward the property line, so the best possible location was leaving it where it was. Ann asked as a board, could they make the best possible location decision, not knowing where the boundaries are? Roger stated that Dana Libby had set the survey of where the house is. Ann said, ok. Roger said the survey was done in 2014, the board will use that to say the building is in the location it is in, even though the lines are being contested.

Roland L. stated that the only reservation was to protect Mr. Rajchel’s interest. Mr. Rachel stated that he understood that, which was why they hadn’t torn the building down, they hadn’t applied for the permit, they haven’t done anything yet. He said they want to know what they own before they start, but it’s been 2 years, and he felt it was time to go as far as they could.

Roger A. stated the new property line between Mr. Rajchel and Mr. Foglio was going to decrease the distance that Mr. Libby had in 2014. He said Mr. Libby had 29.21 feet and now it will be less. Mr. Rajchel stated that they did not know because again the stakes that the board saw in the ground were set by Steve Foglio, and he said it was what they believed they were going to call the boundary line on that side between the properties. He said that Steve Foglio stated he had to check with the Town and with his legals to get them to agree as well. Roland asked, “When you said set by Steve, do you mean a representative of Steve like a surveyor”? Mr. Rajchel stated, “No, Steve physically put those wooden stakes in the ground and hammered them where they are. I then had my surveyor, Dana Libby, go in and mark them with concrete post so they wouldn’t move”. He said we have agreed verbally with a hand shake and now we are trying to make the rest of it work. Roland said, “Ok, thank you”.

Roger A. stated that building permits were only good for two years. Roger stated that a DEP permit would be required to remove the structure because of the proximity to the water. Mr. Rajchel stated that he would be using one of the local contractors that has assured him that he is DEP certified, and the contractor estimated that the ground-up stumps used for erosion control are going to be 15 to 20 feet away from the existing building. He said the contractor does not feel that they will have to go closer to the water with erosion control. He said again that that was their expertise, not his.

Roland L. asked if Roger was talking about a DEP Permit by Rule? Roger A. said, yes, a DEP Permit by Rule will allow you to take a building down. He said then, best management practices would have to be done by a DEP contractor that is certified to oversee the project, to make sure erosion control measures are maintained, so that no erosion goes into the lake. Roland asked if it was the applicant’s responsibility to contact the DEP and file for a Permit by Rule or is it the contractor. Roger said, “A contractor can do it for the owner”. Roland told Mr. Rajchel to remember ‘PBR’, Permit by Rule, talk with your contractor to make sure he is going to do it, because you need it. Mr. Rajchel said again he was going to use one of the local guys. Ann H. noted that there was a list of contractors on the DEP website that states whether or not they are certified. Roland stated, “Don’t make an assumption he is going to apply for it”. Roger stated

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – July 9, 2019 Page 11 of 24

that the DEP has 14 days to respond to your project, if they don’t respond in 14 days your permit is granted. Roger said that they will give a copy to the CEO, so the Town will know that it was filed.

Roger A. stated that BMP (best management practices) must be maintained until everything is stabilized.

Roger A. stated that the surveyor will set where the house actually sets today, as well as where the new foundation will sit. Roger said prior to the concrete being poured, the surveyor and CEO needs to be notified, so he can take a look at it and set pins.

Roger A. stated the two trees to be removed needed to be replanted. Roger said he would leave the location up to the CEO, because it is a two phase project, it would be best to have the CEO determine when replanting should take place and where. Roger didn’t want the trees planted and then have the area disturbed again.

Maggie M. stated she wanted clarity with respect to the foundation location, she believed it could only be where it is now. Roger said, “True”. Maggie said the section where the foundation is going to be added, by that wording it wouldn’t be included. Mr. Rajchel stated, “She is right. The replacement building will have a foundation that is in a different location, but, the new building will be within the existing footprint”. Maggie said, “OK, I just wanted to clarify”.

Roger A. stated that the front wall where the house sits will have to set exactly where it is. Roger said, “You won’t be moving it, just the lake side and Steve’s side”. Mr. Rajchel stated that the wall itself will be a little closer to the water a couple of inches than the existing. Roger agreed and the wall will be closer to Steve’s side. Mr. Rajchel stated again the foundation would be slightly closer to the lake but the drip edge would be within the existing footprint. He stated it was a definition they were working with, when Roger said wall, did he mean wall or drip edge. Roger said, “Poured concrete will actually sit approximately where it is”. Mr. Rajchel stated that it would be a little closer to the water because of a bigger eave on the roof, that is what is existing there. He said everything was guided by the roof drip edge, the eave is going to be bigger than existing, so it will push the exterior wall closer in. Ann H. stated, “But it can’t go closer to the water”. Mr. Rajchel stated, “The new building will be within the existing footprint of the existing building”. Roger A. stated that the surveyor will have those dimensions for CEO Demers and he can look at that.

Roland L. asked CEO Demers about grey water holding tanks systems, were they still acceptable? CEO Demers stated that he hadn’t run across this but he believed that ones that exist that have nothing wrong with them, and he wants to use it for things like stormwater runoff from his gutters, he didn’t see anything wrong with that. He stated that water that came off a boiler, it couldn’t go into a grey water system and obviously not sewerage. Roland said it was pointed out during the site visit that there were two grey water tanks. He said the board hadn’t come across this before. CEO Demers said again that as long as it was existing and he wasn’t putting anything hazardous into it, water from gutters was fine.

Roger A. reviewed §105-4.D ‘Nonconforming structures’ and Section 7 ‘Relocation’. Roger noted that the area was grass at this time, therefore, the revegetation will be grass once the project is completed.

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

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – July 9, 2019 Page 12 of 24

1) Best Management Practices shall be in place until the project is completed and the ground is stabilized. A DEP Permit by Rule is required prior to demolition.

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

3) Two trees removed must be replaced with 2 trees six feet in height per Shapleigh Zoning Ordinance §105-4.D.7B[1][a]. Location and planting scheduled will be determined by the Code Enforcement Officer.

4) 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. The surveyor shall place the structure where it is today and then place the pins prior to pouring the new foundation.

Maggie M. asked if there needed to be anything in the conditions to address the current boundary issues? Roger A. stated the plan the board has is from Dana Libby and that is what we are using. He said if the boundaries change it is up to them to record it at the courthouse. Roland asked that a condition be listed that all demolition material be taken out of town. Roger stated, yes. Mr. Rajchel stated that he was going to be taking it to Simpsons, and he believed it was out of town. Roger agreed, stating it was in Sanford.

Condition 5) All demolition material shall be taken out of Shapleigh and disposed of properly.

Maggie M. made the motion to approve the best possible location, placing the footprint of the new structure within the existing building envelope, on Shapleigh Tax Map 18, Lot 19, with five stated conditions. Roland 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. By a vote of 4 – 0, the motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Rajchel asked if it was clear that the new building could be built within the existing building envelope. Roger A. stated that yes, the existing envelope and the surveyor would set that envelope, and Mr. Rajchel would need to get that information to the CEO.

Nothing further was discussed.

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

The Findings of Facts

1. The owners of Shapleigh Tax Map 18, Lot 19 (7 1st Street), is the Rajchel Family Revocable Trust of 2014; Jan J. Rachel & Linda M. Rajchel, Trustees, of 122 Jacobs Well Road, Epping, NH 03042.

2. The property is located in the Shoreland District and according to the assessor contains 0.40 acres.

3. The applicant is before the board for a Best Possible Location to replace the existing structure, keeping the new structure the same size and leaving it in the same location as the existing structure.

4. Received 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

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – July 9, 2019 Page 13 of 24

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.

5. Received 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.

6. Received was a letter 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.

7. The detailed description of the project stated in part: 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. 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. 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. 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.

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 June 26, 2019. Meetings were held on Tuesday, June 25, 2019 and Tuesday, July 9, 2019. A site inspection was conducted on July 9, 2019, prior to the meeting.

10. The Planning Board unanimously agreed to approve the Best Possible Location, placing the footprint of the new structure within the existing building envelope per the plans provided with five conditions:

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – July 9, 2019 Page 14 of 24

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. A DEP Permit by Rule is required prior to demolition.

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

3) Two trees removed must be replaced with 2 trees six feet in height per Shapleigh Zoning Ordinance §105-4.D.7B[1][a]. Location and planting schedule will be determined by the Code Enforcement Officer.

4) 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. The surveyor shall place the structure where it is today on the lot and then place the pins prior to pouring the new foundation.

5) All demolition material shall be taken out of Shapleigh and disposed of properly.

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

Conditional Use Permit – Earth Moving in the Shoreland District – Map 23, Lot 10 (37 Starboard Lane) – Michael Roberts, Applicant & Property Owner

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

Along with the application, Mr. Roberts provided a sketch plan which depicted the location of the existing house, garage and decks, areas called ‘stumps grindings’, areas called ‘sand now’, the location of the existing retaining walls, and the shoreline setback, which is located approximately halfway thru the middle of the existing garage. All other features on the plan, except the rear portion of the garage, are within 100 feet of the high water mark.

The detailed description of the project is as follows: Bring in 52 yards of sand to replenish and level existing sanded area.

Roger A. asked Mr. Roberts to let the board know what he wanted to do. Mr. Roberts stated he wanted to replace and regrade what was there. He said nothing was going to be removed, it was going to be brought in to replace and level the existing area.

Roland L. asked what was there now? Mr. Roberts stated, “All sand”. Roland asked if there was any vegetation? Mr. Roberts stated it was rocks and sands. Ann H. said, “Then nothing will grow in it”. Mr. Roberts stated that the trees that had been replaced since the house was burned down were growing, but the areas noted on the plan have no vegetation at all. Mr. Roberts said that they bought it in August of 2015, and there is anywhere from 2 inches to 6 inches in spots that were missing sand, both on the upper and lower location. He stated they just want to level it off, so it is just 2 inches from the top of the wall to make it level.

Roland L. noted that the board had visited the site in the past. Mr. Roberts agreed, that several times the board had been there. Ann H. asked if Mr. Roberts intended to put mulch on top of the sand? Mr. Roberts stated, “No it’s sand now and it’s going to stay sand”. He said there were mulch areas around it, and those areas would not be disturbed. He added that it wasn’t actually mulch but erosion control. Ann

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – July 9, 2019 Page 15 of 24

said, “OK, that is what that meant”. She was referring to the notation on the plan. Mr. Roberts said that at some point they may need to add more erosion control mulch, noting that when they bought the house it was much thicker than it is now.

Roger A. stated, “You need a DEP Permit by Rule”. Mr. Roberts asked what for? Roger said, “For filling in”. Mr. Roberts asked if it was for mulch or the sand? Roger stated that for anything being brought in, mulch or sand, a DEP permit was required. He said a Permit by Rule was required if you are moving greater than 10 yards of anything within 100 feet of the water. Roger stated that DEP had to be notified as to what Mr. Roberts was going to do to see if they have any concerns.

Roger A. stated that his concern was how the area was going to be stabilized, he did not feel you could just leave sand there. Mr. Roberts stated that it was stabilized with concrete. He said there is a barrier between the lake and the first area, and another concrete wall that stabilizes it between the house and the first area. He said there is erosion control around it, which includes the trees and growth, so it is all stabilized. He said the natural area stabilizes it.

Ann H. asked other members what was said in the meeting they had regarding erosion control measures, was it to place a berm? She couldn’t remember exactly what they were told. Roland L. stated that she would have a better understanding what was taking place on site at the inspection, she would see what Mr. Roberts was talking about.

Roger A. stated a site inspection would be held at 6:30 on Tuesday, July 23rd, just prior to the meeting. A notice to abutters would be mailed as well.

Nothing further was discussed.

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

Conditional Use Permit – Replace Existing Retaining Wall & Add Riprap to Slope – Map 27, Lot 20 (30 Point Road) – Craig Burgess, PE, Representing; Gerard Landry, Applicant & Co-Trustee of the Property

Mr. Burgess and Mr. Landry were present for the review of the application.

Along with the application, provided was an email dated June 11, 2019, which stated that Mr. Burgess had permission to act on behalf of L. Gerard Landry, trustee of the Percy M. Cunningham Jr. Trust, owner of 30 Point Road, Shapleigh, regarding the wall replacement project; a site location map depicting the location of the project; a plan entitled Site Exhibit, 30 Point Road Site, which depicted the house, two decks and stairs, along with the location of Point Road; and a copy of the Warranty Deed showing Cynthia L. Cunningham, L. Gerard Landry, and Becky A. Landry, as Successor Co-Trustees of the Percy M. Cunningham, Jr. Trust dated as recorded at the YCRD on 12/26/2018.

Also provided was a set of plans, entitled ’30 Point Road Shoreline Improvements’ which contained the following pages: Cover Sheet, drafted by Craig A. Burgess, PE #12638, dated 6/7/2019, which listed the table of contents and depicted the existing structures and vegetation located at 30 Point Road; Existing Conditions Plan, drafted by Jacob I. Bartlett, PLS #2513, dated 2/25/2019, which depicted survey pipes found, the existing structures on site, driveway, vegetation, elevation contours, location of Point Road, Mousam Lake and abutting properties, and ‘apparent location of tire retaining wall, unable to verify

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – July 9, 2019 Page 16 of 24

extent due to snow cover; Site & Grading Plan, drafted by Craig A. Burgess, PE #12638, dated 6/7/2019 which depicts the existing structures, vegetation, Point Road, boundary lines, property line at high water line, which trees will be removed or protected, erosion control measures and where they will be located, the location of the structures to be replaced which includes a deck, stairs, and wall, and the addition of riprap; Erosion Control & Sediment Control Notes, drafted by Craig A. Burgess, PE #12638, dated 6/7/2019; and the Erosion & Sediment Control Details, also drafted by Craig A. Burgess, PE #12638, dated 6/7/2019. Both Craig Burgess and Jacob Bartlett are from Sebago Technics, in South Portland, Maine.

The detailed project description reads in part, as follows:

The enclosed Conditional Use Permit application is for shoreline stabilization along Mousam Lake at 30 Point Road. Over the years, an existing retaining wall made of old tires and sideslopes immediately adjacent to Mousam Lake have experienced erosion. Without proper stabilization, the existing wall will likely fail and the sideslopes will continue to erode.

Shoreline stabilization work at 30 Point Road will involve replacement of the existing retaining wall and approximately 26 linear feet of riprapped slope to prevent additional erosion and to provide long-term protection of existing developed areas. Other improvements include extending the wall an additional 3 feet, replacement of stairs and wood deck, replacement of existing gravel with stone pavers and removal of two trees with significant root exposure. Construction during the offseason is ideal, and the applicant is hopeful to complete the project sometime between September and November of 2019.

Project impacts to Mousam Lake natural resource buffer will be reviewed concurrently by Maine Department of Environmental Protection under an individual Natural Resources Protection Act permit and the Army Corps of Engineers. Both applications were filed on June 11, 2019.

Roger A. asked Mr. Burgess to let the board know what they intended to do. Mr. Burgess began by introducing himself and Mr. Landry. He stated the main reason they were before the board was due to an old retaining wall that was made up of mostly old tires, which was put into place prior to Mr. Landry’s acquisition of the lot. He said they decided to replace the wall and are before the town for a permit. They also want to replace an old stairway, and an old wooden deck with a stone patio, noting that the patio will match the existing deck footprint. He pointed out a slope on the plan that was showing signs of erosion, so they want to install riprap between the stairway and the property line. He pointed out an adjoining parcel, which they also own, and stated that they will match the riprap on that side of the property as well. He stated that 2 trees have roots exposed, so they want to remove them as part of the project. He stated that overall the retaining wall would be lengthened approximately 7 feet. He said at the site inspection the board would see the reason to lengthen it, to better improve the slope. He stated that was the extent of the project. Overall, the disturbance limits will match what exists now, except for the riprap slope which they will install brand new to prevent future erosion.

Mr. Burgess stated that they had submitted a full Natural Resource Protection Act Permit with the Maine DEP, and they will be visiting the site next Wednesday. He said an Army Corp of Engineers permit is not required, because there is no work being proposed below the high water mark of Mousam Lake. He said

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – July 9, 2019 Page 17 of 24

he was awaiting the DEP permit, which he hoped to have by September, so they can have a fall construction start for the project.

Roger A. said that was the perfect time to do this project, as they are lowering the lake to repair the dam, the water will be very low. Two feet lower than typical.

Mr. Burgess stated that he forgot to mention the level gravel area, which he showed on the plan; the Landry’s wanted to place a stone patio there as well. Roger A. stated that existing structures can typically be replaced but no new structures are allowed within 100 feet of the water. Mr. Burgess stated that they were going to replace the existing gravel that is there with stone patio. Roger said that pavers are considered a structure, and you cannot add a new structure. Mr. Burgess stated, “So we can’t replace the gravel with a stone patio”. Roger said, “No. You can put down stone dust but not pavers. It is a structure. You can’t lengthen the wall, the wall has to be the same length”. Mr. Burgess said when you go to the site, it appears that at one point it was an extra seven feet in length but the tires have fallen out over the years. He said it was hard to tell exactly how long the wall was. Roger stated that if the board could see evidence of a wall, they could consider it. Ann H. told Mr. Burgess to mark out where they believed the wall set. Mr. Burgess stated that they were definitely trying to improve the slope and prevent future erosion. Roger said, yes. Roger said the trees where the roots are exposed, you can cut the trees but you need to leave the roots. He didn’t like the appearance, but it is usually what the DEP wants. Mr. Burgess stated that usually they allow us to cut down the trees and remove the roots, because if the tree comes down it usually takes the roots with it, then the whole slope is compromised. Ann H. said, “Then they approve it”. Roger said, “Yup”.

Mr. Burgess said again, “So the Town prohibits a stone patio, so we will just level off the gravel area that’s there”. Ann H. said that rain cannot go through the patio, so they don’t want the runoff to go into the water. Roger A. said again that you cannot add any new structures. Mr. Burgess said, “OK”. He said they would remove that from the project.

Roger A. stated the board would have a site inspection at 7:00 p.m. on July 23rd. A Notice to Abutters would be mailed as well.

Mr. Burgess asked if a permeable paver be allowed? CEO Demers stated, “That is a structure as well”. Mr. Burgess said, “OK”.

Roger stated that after the site inspection would be the regular meeting to review the plan.

Nothing further was discussed.

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

3-Lot Minor Subdivision – Map 1, Lot 12 (221 Deering Ridge Road) – Richard & Susan Day, Applicants & Property Owner(s)

Mr. & Mrs. Day were present for the review of the application. Also in attendance were Leah and Tim Cochrane.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – July 9, 2019 Page 18 of 24

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

Name of Applicant(s): Richard B. & Susan J. Day

Name of Property Owner: Richard B. & Susan J. Day

Mailing Address: 636 Gore Road

Alfred, Maine 04002

Name of

Land Surveyor/Plan Prep: Steven C. Horne, LLC, PLS #2389

849 Main Street, Suite 400

P.O. Box 1544, Sanford, ME 04073

207.651.1149

Land Information:

Location of Property: YCRD, Book 17878, Page 387

Shapleigh Tax Map 1, Lot 12

221 Deering Ridge Road & Grant Road

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: 48.11 Acres

This property has not been part of a prior subdivision.

There was one lot created from the parent lot in the last five years.

Existing Use of Land: Old saw mill on part of the property, the rest is wooded.

Number of Lots to be

Created: 3 Lots in Total (1 New Lot - 8.01 Acres in Size)

Current Deed/ Subdivision

Restrictions: No restrictions proposed at this time.

Water Bodies on Parcel: No

Flood Hazard Zone: No

General Information:

Proposed Name of

Development: Day Subdivision

Total Number of Lots: 3

Existing in Development: Road Access

Method of Water Supply: Individual Wells

Method of Sewage

Disposal: Individual Septic Tanks

Method of Fire

Protection Proposed: Shapleigh Fire Dept., along with nearby hydrant/fire pond.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – July 9, 2019 Page 19 of 24

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

Provided along with the subdivision application, was a plan entitled ‘Plan Depicting a Boundary Survey of Land of Stanley Family Trust, Grant Road and Deering Ridge Road, Shapleigh, Maine’ drafted by Steven C. Horne, LLC, PLS #2389, dated 6/21/2011. The plan depicts Map 1, Lot 12, showing a total area of 56.98 acres. The plan depicts three lots, one lot which consists of approximately 8.57 acres and shows an existing structure, driveway, stonewall and pond. This lot has been deeded out of the parent parcel to a member of the Stanley Family Trust. The plan also depicts the remaining acreage of the parent lot, which includes the proposed new lot being 8.01 acres (the location of an old saw mill is depicted), an existing stone wall and trail, and abutting properties and property owners. Both Grant Road and Deering Ridge Road are depicting on the plan.

Also received was a letter from the applicants, Richard and Susan Day, dated June 20, 2019. The letter read as follows:

We purchased 48.11 acres from the Stanley Family Trust on January 11, 2019. Our plan was to convey 8.01 acres to our daughter and son-in-law, Leah and Tim Cochrane. It was made clear to us by our attorney David Ordway and our surveyor Steve Horne that we would not be creating a subdivision and that the approximately 8 acres Cindy Smith previously received from the family trust didn’t count as a subdivision because she is a family member. In the process of doing title work to convey the property to our daughter and her husband, Hull Law Office states Cindy Smith received her property from a trust, a trust is not a person, it doesn’t qualify as a family member subdivision exemption. Hull Law Office has determined we cannot convey 8.01 acres to a family member of ours without a minor subdivision approval. By retaining more than 40 acres, would this lot count for subdivision purposes? As of this writing, it is not our intent to subdivide the remaining 40.1 acres, to build more than our one retirement home or develop this property in any way. Our desire is to simply convey the 8.01 acres to Tim and Leah Cochrane for their business, Honest Cords Firewood, which has already been approved.

Roger A. opened the review by stating that the Days were before the board because they were in a predicament. Roger said that the board had granted the firewood business to Mr. Day’s son-in-law on the property. Roger asked Mr. Day to explain further. Mr. Day stated that his son-in-law went through a bank to purchase the property and during the process the bank attorney discovered that the lot being sold was the third lot within five years, so the bank is requiring them to apply for a minor subdivision. Mr. Day

said that Cindy and John Smith, their lot was the first lot, that lot is 8.57 acres. He said this lot has an existing house and a pond, this is considered lot number one. He stated that the 48 acres he bought is lot number two, and splitting off 8.01 acres to Tim and Leah creates the third lot. Mr. Day stated that the bank will not give Tim and Leah a loan to purchase unless they go through the town for a subdivision.

Ann H. asked if they needed to make it into a subdivision in order to have the firewood operation? Roger A. said that that has nothing to do with this. Ann asked if they wanted to build a house. Mr. Day said, no.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – July 9, 2019 Page 20 of 24

Tim Cochrane stated, “I just want to be able to purchase that piece of property. This was the intention all along, however, that bank’s attorney found out that we are not under the 3-lot minimum. So in order to buy it, I can’t until this is all squared away”. Mr. Day added that they cannot get insurable title on the third lot unless they go through minor subdivision. Ann said she understood about title insurance. Mrs. Day asked about the fact it’s a trust and the trust gave her (Mrs. Smith) the property. Roger A. said it didn’t matter. He stated that he spoke with Mr. Day about whether or not he needed to go through subdivision, and he told him yes, because Mr. Day is selling the lot to his son-in-law. He said if Mr. Day had given the lot to his son-in-law, then it would have been exempt, as a gift to a family member. He said again it was the sale that created the third lot. Mr. Day said the other problem was that the whole property was in a trust, which is not a person. He said, so when Cindy and John inherited the piece of land, this was the first sale.

Roger A. stated that what was going to happen on the new lot was not going to change, it was still going to be a log splitting business, it is just the fact the lot is being sold, that is what triggered subdivision. Ann H. asked if he will meet the road frontage? Mr. Day said that he would and his driveway has already been approved. Roger agreed, he had everything, the road frontage, size of the lot, everything complies with the Zoning Ordinance. Ann said as a Planning Board, we just have to say it is ok for them to create a minor subdivision here. Roger said, “That’s true. And they will have Mylar’s that the board will sign and they will get it recorded within the 90 day period”. He said it was a formality to get money from the bank.

Roger A. said they were asking for a waiver for underground power, sidewalks, monuments and drainage. Ann H. asked if the Smith’s had to put in underground or any of the other stuff. Roger said, “That lot was already existing”. Mr. Day stated that he understood they had to have test pits done on Tim’s lot, as well as his own. Roger said yes, and thought he would want to have it regardless. Mr. Day asked why they needed one for Tim and Leah’s lot if they were not building a home? Roger said it was to be sure the soils would hold a septic system. Mr. Day asked if there was a particular location that had to be put on the plan. Roger said they will put the location on the plan for the test pit, and provide the accompanying information on the soils. Mr. Day stated that the test pits were scheduled for July 15th, so it will be done for the next meeting.

Mr. Day said it doesn’t affect the people that are around the property. Roger A. stated that they will be notified because it is required. He said they can voice any concerns, but he didn’t think there should be much of an issue. Ann H. said that is why she asked if they had to put in underground utilities and monuments (the neighbor). Roger said they were asking for waivers for it for all lots. Mr. Day said the survey had already taken place and the lots were pinned already. Ann said she was worried if the neighbor had to do it. Maggie M. said, no. Roger said the only change being done is the purchase of one lot. Roger added that Mr. Day would be building a new house on the remaining land. Mr. Day said he would be next year. Roger said that it was up to the board, as to whether or not they wanted to grant the waivers. He said in truth the only reason for the subdivision was because the lot was being sold. Had he given the lot to his daughter and son-in-law they would not be before the board.

Roger A. stated that with respect to the waivers, and stormwater management, there are no changes being done to the road or the lot, since the creation of the new lot, so he didn’t see an issue there. He did not see a problem with waiving that requirement. He said this is the same with street design standards, there is no new road being created, the lots are on the existing road(s).

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – July 9, 2019 Page 21 of 24

Roger A. stated that a notification to abutters will be mailed out. Maggie M. asked if a public hearing would be required. Roger didn’t see the need for a public hearing, as no major changes to the lot are being done. The board did not feel a site inspection was required since they had been to the lot for the approval of the firewood business, and no changes are being made since that time.

Barbara F. asked if the only additional thing being required are the test pit pits and the information regarding the soils at the test pits? Roger A. agreed, that was all the board needed.

Roger A. stated the board would take this back up on Tuesday, July 23rd, where they will sign the Mylar’s. Mr. Day was told he would need 2 Mylar’s as well as three paper copies for the board to sign. Roger said that after they are signed, Mr. Day would have 90 days to get them recorded at the York County Registry of Deeds. Roger said that once they put a book and page number on the Mylar’s, one of those has to come back to the town hall for assessing, so we know it is legal. One of the paper copies goes into the Planning Board file.

Nothing further was discussed.

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

Other:


Roland L. told board members that the dam committee met and reviewed the latest bids, and there was no determination made to who would get the contract. He said they did make the decision that regardless whether or not the work is done to the dam, they will be doing a major draw-down because they said they were going to. He said there has been a lot of conversation regarding the fact the water will be really low come fall, so they felt in all fairness they would do what was expected and draw the lake down as planned. Roland said it would be drawn down an extra two feet beyond what is typical, which will be significant, and it will begin on October 1st. He said the plan was to have the work completed by November 22nd, and the hope is the lake will be able to recharge to the normal winter low before it freezes. Roland said if it doesn’t recover, and the water freezes, then if you get water on top, the ice will rise and there will be open water on the shore. This is a huge safety issue. Or if people leave a dock in the water, it could be destroyed. Ann H. thought everyone was supposed to remove their docks. Roland said that was true but not everyone does. Roger A. agreed. Roland said if anyone needs to use the State ramp, they need to be aware, because the State doesn’t want to leave the ramp out late in the season. Maggie M. said the notice said the boat are supposed to be out by October 1st. Roland understood that but people don’t always pay attention, but they will need to this year.

Nothing further was discussed.

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

Roger A. stated he wanted to speak about amendments to an approved Best Possible Location. He felt when any change was made to a Planning Board decision regarding a BPL, it needed to come back before the board. He did not want people thinking that an approval was not to be adhered to, he believed that the parameters given by the board needed to be followed, and if not, the applicant had to come back before the board to amend the approval, not only to get further approval but so the information on file was accurate.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – July 9, 2019 Page 22 of 24

Roger A. also felt that any change to an approved Conditional Use Permit, also needed to come back before the board. He said if the CUP as presented, changes, the applicant needs to tell the board of those changes.

Roger A. stated that a recent BPL approval by the board needs to be amended, and the applicant is asking whether or not he has to come back before the board or just go to the Code Enforcement Officer for approval. Roger believed that since the board was the authority for the approval on the original application, then they are also the authority for the amendment.

CEO Demers stated that he understood what Roger was stating. He asked if an amendment was a reapplication or is it as a courtesy the applicant comes in to let the board know of the change, and then ‘see you later’? Ann H. asked if it was Shoreland the board sees it and if something else CEO? Roger pointed out that all BPL’s were going to be Shoreland. Ann said the changes to a recent CUP wasn’t in the Shoreland. Roger said he understood that, that was a business approval.

Roger A. stated that any new CUP, that gets modified from the original approval, he believed needed to come back before the board for an approval of the change. Ann H. asked if they should just look at changes in the Shoreland and any other changes the CEO? Roger stated that he did not care if it was Shoreland or not, he felt that any approval made by the Planning Board, if the applicant does not follow through exactly as approved, they need to come back before the board to have the change approved.

CEO Demers stated that a change of more than 50% then it has to come back before the board. Roger A. stated 25% for conditional uses existing prior to zoning. Roger said that new conditional uses, the ordinance states that ‘any change’ to any approved Conditional Use has to come back before the board.

Roger A. said he did not want the board to pick and choose, as to who has to come back before the board and who does not. He felt that all applicants need to be treated the same. He also didn’t want a ‘bait and switch’ from the applicant, whereas they pick and choose what part of the approval they will follow and what they will ignore. He personally could not see a conditional use being granted and after that the board doesn’t care what the applicant does. He said again that he felt any change needed to come back to the board, because if the board does not do this and do it for everyone, people will start to say ‘why can’t I make a change, you let the other person make a change to their approval’.

Roland L. said one applicant this evening said something similar, that the board allowed the neighbor to have an approval without knowing where the property line was, so they should also be allowed. CEO Demers said this was a falsehood, because the neighbor had his survey. He said what is happening now, is the neighbor and tonight’s applicant are trying to take the property line that exists and come to an agreement. Roland said he didn’t say the applicant was accurate and noted he showed them the property line at the site inspection. He said he agreed that everyone had to be treated the same.

Roger A. stated that what he wanted to know from the board members, are changes to Planning Board approvals going to come back before the board as an amendment, or are they going to the CEO for approval? Roland L. asked CEO Demers his opinion, as a general rule. CEO Demers stated at least he would want a courtesy amendment, for the applicant to come back and tell the board what they were doing. He did not know if abutters would have to be notified again or not. Ann H. said it would probably

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – July 9, 2019 Page 23 of 24

depend on the decision. CEO Demers said it could also depend on the time frame. Ann felt if everyone had to come back before the board it would be consistent.

Roland L. felt they should have to come back before the board, because it would make it easier for CEO Demers and it would reduce the likelihood people would say so-n-so could do this, why can’t I. Maggie M. said that it would also reduce the possibility, if everyone had to do it, of someone saying ‘well they don’t do it for everyone, so let’s just take the chance’. Roger A. said it would help prevent ‘bait n switch’ and he believed that with any amendment, it gives the board the chance to re-review and see if further changes should be required because of the change. Roger said that with respect to re-notification for an amendment, I think the board should have the option, but it doesn’t have to be required. It would depend on what change is taking place. Roland agreed that if the change was controversial the board might want to notify abutters. Roger said if it was a recent BPL, and no one had any interest in what was taking place, the board probably wouldn’t require notification if the modification was minimal.

Roland L. stated he supported the idea of having the applicant come back before the board for any change in their approval. Ann H. agreed. Roland said if it is necessary, the board can do a site visit, if the applicant uncovers something they didn’t know during the approval process and they have to make a change, they should come back for an amendment. CEO Demers asked if fees would be involved. Barbara F. stated that to date all amendments to the approval have required the amendment fee. She noted that the amendment fee was not as high as it is now, but again past precedence was a fee was paid by the applicant for the board to review the changes to their approval. Roger A. stated that in his opinion, that is the cost of doing business. He felt it was not a huge deal to pay an amendment fee when doing these projects. CEO Demers agreed, he just wanted to know what to tell them when they ask. Roger said an amendment cost the town no matter what, so they should pay the fee.

Roger A. gave an example of when a house gets placed by the board, then a surveyor comes in and makes a change to the plan. Roger noted that a recent applicant had to come back before the board because the location of their house ended up changing from the approval. The new location will be modified and the new measurements will be put into the file.

The board members agreed that any modification to a Planning Board approval, would come back to the Planning Board as an amendment to the original approval.

CEO Demers asked about whether or not it was Planning Board or his office if someone was replacing something one for one. He said if someone was transforming a deck into a patio, is this something the Planning Board would approve or is that something that goes to the Code office? Roger A. asked if 10 yards of fill was being moved? CEO Demers said if you are replacing a patio in kind. Roger said if one for one there is no change, if I pulled my deck and put a patio down and did not move 10 yards, then it is CEO. He said if 10 yards of fill are moved, then it is Planning Board.

CEO Demers said if he found through research that the existing deck was never permitted, even though the Planning Board approved the replacement, could he deny the building permit? Roger A. said if the CEO has documentation that the structure was never approved, it would trump the Planning Board approval, because the applicant gave the board false information.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – July 9, 2019 Page 24 of 24

Nothing further was discussed.

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

Growth Permits

Map 5, Lot 3-5B (23rd Street Loop) – New Home GP #10-19

This is a legal lot of record meeting the minimum lots size standards in the Zoning Ordinance.

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

The Planning Board meeting ended at 9:25 p.m.

NOTE: The summer hours are in effect thru October 31st, the meetings now begin at 7:30 p.m. and any scheduled public hearing begins at 7:00 p.m.

The next meeting will be held Tuesday, July 23, 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