February 17, 2020  6:15 PM 
December 13, 2019
Other Notices
February 07, 2020
January 29, 2020
January 28, 2020
January 17, 2020
December 18, 2019
December 13, 2019
November 22, 2019
November 13, 2019
November 12, 2019
October 22, 2019

Shapleigh Planning Board

Minutes

Tuesday, November 12, 2019

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

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

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

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

The minutes from Tuesday, October 22, 2019 were accepted as read.

Madge noted that she did not feel there were any changes required to the minutes but that the board had forgotten to specifically go over the conditions under §105-73 for the review of Mr. Roberts application, and she wanted to be sure that the board did not forget to do this, this evening.

The Planning Board meeting started at 6:30 p.m.

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

Conditional Use Permit – Earth Moving in the Shoreland District to Replace Retaining Wall – Map 44, Lot 25 (Silver Lake Road) – Roger Pratt, Applicant & Owner

Mr. Pratt was present for the review of the application, along with his wife Helen.

Previously provided along with the application was a sketch plan which depicted a wall running along Silver Lake, one section being 22 feet wide x 64 inches high and the other being 24 feet wide x 64 inches high. There is also a set of stairs to the water running 12 – 13 feet, with 11 risers noted. 14 trees are depicted on the plan along with their circumference, and the plan states that 3 of these trees will be removed. There is a notation on the plan that states ‘Beach – Variable Width’.

The detailed description of the project is written as follows:

Replace existing stone wall at water’s edge with concrete landscape blocks 16” x 4’ each. The existing stone wall is cracked, leaning and in danger of falling. The wall extends the entire 50 feet of waterfront, with 5 foot stairs in approximate center. There are 11 steps leading to top of wall. We are proposing replacing the stone wall with concrete 16” x 4’ Loc-Blocks which are available at Pepin Precast. The stairway will need to be moved back so that it will no longer extend onto the beach, causing erosion when the lake is high. Stairs will be even with the front of the wall. We will need to remove the 3 trees indicated to complete the work, and prevent destruction of the replacement wall from roots. The wall is on average 60” to 65” in height. We are proposing to pour concrete footings to place the blocks on, with 4 rows of blocks to keep wall at a uniform 64” across length of wall excluding the staircase. There is currently little to no vegetation on existing ground at top of wall, and would like to maintain the natural landscape of sand and pine needles as it is currently.

Page 1 of 27

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 11/12/2019 Page 2 of 27

On October 22, 2019, the board tabled the application pending an engineer’s stamp for the design of the new wall because it was over four feet in height, along with requesting a replanting plan for the trees that will be removed.

This evening Mr. Pratt provided the board will an engineered drawing of the proposed wall, drafted by Eric Merluzzi, PE #13003, of 184 Rowenton Road, Wentworth, NH 03282. The drawing was entitled: Proposed Retaining Walls – Pratt & Cash, 177 Silver Lake Road & 16 Camp Road, Shapleigh, ME. The client was noted as Pepin Precast, and the plan was dated November 12, 2019. The plan provides details for the construction of the new wall, including Site Preparation, Leveling Pad & Bottom Block, Wall Drain, Backfilling & Compaction, and General Wall Layout & Construction. Also provided was a revised sketch plan, drafted by Mr. Pratt, which depicted the location of the wall, stairs, 12 x 12’ patio, 3 x 4’ shed, existing trees, trees to be removed and where the replacement trees will be planted. The sketch depicted a total of 4 trees to be replaced.

Roger A. opened the meeting by asking Mr. Pratt where the placement of the new trees would be? Mr. Pratt showed Roger using the sketch plan he provided.

Roger A. stated that because of the height of the new wall an engineered plan was required, which he pointed out was provided this evening. Madge B. said she believed these were the only two things the board needed for this application.

Roger A. stated the reason Mr. Pratt was before the board was because of §105-39 ‘Earth removal and filling for activities other than mineral exploration and extraction’, Section D ‘Earthmoving in the Shoreland District’. Roger stated that earth moving greater than 10 cubic yards required Planning Board approval. Roger stated that under Section D(1) it states Best Management Practices needed to be used, using the DEP standards.

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

Roger A. stated that all the walls greater than 4 feet in height would have the same standards and review. Note: The walls before the board were located in the same general vicinity and several would be built by Mr. Pratt.

Roger A. stated that the project was supposed to be done when the ice was on the lake, so he asked Mr. Pratt if the tree planting would be done by May 15, 2020? Mr. Pratt stated they would be done by June 15, 2020. He said the sooner the ice came in, the sooner he could start.

Steve F. stated that for the record he wanted it stated that he would be moving the stairs. Mr. Pratt stated that it was on the plan. He said they were on page 2 of the plan. There were two sketch plans on page 2 of the engineered plan, one was labeled Pratt and the other Cash.

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

1) The use will not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, birds or other wildlife habitat. Roger A. stated, it will not. The wall will help to conserve the habitat by stopping erosion and sedimentation from going into the lake.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 11/12/2019 Page 3 of 27

2) The use will conserve shore cover and visual, as well as actual, access to water bodies. Roger A. stated that it will.

3) The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Roger A. stated that it is. The Comprehensive Plan wants to make certain the water bodies in Shapleigh remain healthy by preventing erosion.

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 the existing rocks and stones from Mr. Pratt’s property will be taken out of Shapleigh. Roger stated with the Cash wall, the existing wall will be moved to a new location and reused.

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 the new wall(s) have been designed by a licensed engineer to retain the existing earth and mitigate stormwater by way of stone behind the wall. The remaining property is not being altered to create a stormwater issue.

9) Adequate provisions to control soil erosion and sedimentation have been made. Roger A. stated best management practices will be used until the area is stabilized.

10) There is adequate water supply to meet the demands of the proposed use and for fire protection purposes. Roger A. stated there is but it is not a requirement for this project.

11) The provisions for buffer strips and on-site landscaping provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development, such as noise, glare, fumes, dust, odors and the like. Roger A. stated there is minimal vegetation being removed from site. Trees being removed will be replaced per the plan(s) provided.

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 for Map 44, Lot 25 are as follows:

1. The project, the removal and replacement of the existing wall(s) and stairs, and revegetation plan which includes the replacement of the four trees to be removed, shall be completed by June 15, 2020. If this date cannot be accomplished the applicant must contact the Code Enforcement Officer, and have a new date of completion established.

  1. Best Management Practices shall be kept in place until the project is completed. There must be a person certified by the DEP in erosion control practices on site during the project.
  2. All material from the existing wall and stairs to be removed shall be taken out of Shapleigh and disposed of properly.

Madge B. wanted to be sure all the material was going to be removed and taken out of the shoreland area for Mr. Pratt’s wall but with the Cash property, they may use some of them on another property in Shapleigh. Mr. Pratt said that yes, he will be removing the material from his wall but some of the existing blocks from the Cash house will be re-used on another property. He said all the rocks would be leaving Shapleigh. Madge said the board didn’t want any of the rocks dumped in the Shoreland District, within

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 11/12/2019 Page 4 of 27

100 feet of the water in Shapleigh. Roger A. said Mr. LaPointe is going to take some of them on his property, and his camp is behind the Cash property. Mr. Pratt said it was just the blocks, the landscape blocks that would be reused. Madge thought it was fine, she just wanted to be sure no material would stay in the Shoreland District.

Madge B. moved for approval of the Conditional Use Permit for earth moving in the Shoreland District to replace the existing wall and stairs on Map 44, Lot 25 with the above stated conditions. Steve F. 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. By a vote of 5 – 0, the motion passed unanimously.

Nothing further was discussed.

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

The Findings of Facts

1. The owner of Shapleigh Tax Map 44, Lot 25 (Silver Lake Road), is Roger Pratt of 1 New Mill Creek, York, Maine 03909.

2. The property is located in the Shoreland District and according to the assessor the property contains .21 acres.

3. The application description reads as follows: Replace existing stone wall at water’s edge with concrete landscape blocks 16” x 4’ each (see attached).

Attached: Replace existing stone wall at water’s edge with concrete landscape blocks 16” x 4’ each. The existing stone wall is cracked, leaning and in danger of falling. The wall extends the entire 50 feet of waterfront, with 5 foot stairs in approximate center. There are 11 steps leading to top of wall. We are proposing replacing the stone wall with concrete 16” x 4’ Loc-Blocks which are available at Pepin Precast. The stairway will need to be moved back so that it will no longer extend onto the beach, causing erosion when the lake is high. Stairs will be even with the front of the wall. We will need to remove the 3 trees indicated to complete the work, and prevent destruction of the replacement wall from roots. The wall is on average 60” to 65” in height. We are proposing to pour concrete footings to place the blocks on, with 4 rows of blocks to keep wall at a uniform 64” across length of wall excluding the staircase. There is currently little to no vegetation on existing ground at top of wall, and would like to maintain the natural landscape of sand and pine needles as it is currently.

4. Received was a sketch plan which depicted a wall running along Silver Lake, one section being 22 feet wide x 64 inches high and the other being 24 feet wide x 64 inches high. There is also a set of stairs to the water running 12 – 13 feet, with 11 risers noted. 14 trees are depicted on the plan along with their circumference, and the plan states that 3 of these trees will be removed. There is a notation on the plan that states ‘Beach – Variable Width’.

5. Received an engineered drawing of the proposed wall, drafted by Eric Merluzzi, PE #13003, of 184 Rowenton Road, Wentworth, NH 03282. The drawing was entitled: Proposed Retaining Walls – Pratt & Cash, 177 Silver Lake Road & 16 Camp Road, Shapleigh, ME. The client was noted as Pepin Precast, and the plan was dated November 12, 2019. The plan provides details for the construction of

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 11/12/2019 Page 5 of 27

the new wall, including Site Preparation, Leveling Pad & Bottom Block, Wall Drain, Backfilling & Compaction, and General Wall Layout & Construction.

6. Received was a revised sketch plan, drafted by Mr. Pratt, which depicted the location of the wall, stairs, 12 x 12’ patio, 3 x 4’ shed, existing trees, trees to be removed and where the replacement trees will be planted. The sketch depicted a total of 4 trees to be replaced.

7. Received was the DEP Permit by Rule dated as accepted by the MDEP on 10/10/19. The brief description of the project on the application stated: Replacement of Retaining Wall.

8. The Planning Board reviewed §105-39 ‘Earth removal and filling for activities other than mineral exploration and extraction’, and §105-73 ‘Conditional Use Permits’ and concurred the application and information as presented met the performance standards, with conditions.

9. A notice was mailed to all abutters within 500 feet of the property on October 9, 2019. Meetings were held on Tuesday, October 8, 2019, Tuesday October 22, 2019 and Tuesday, November 12, 2019. A site inspection was done by members on Friday, October 18, 2019.

10. The Planning Board unanimously agreed to approve the Conditional Use Permit to replace the existing retaining wall(s), which will be 64 inches in height and a total of 50 feet in length, and stairs per the plans provided, on property known as Tax Map 44, Lot 25, with conditions.

11. The conditions of approval are:

1. The project, the removal and replacement of the existing wall(s) and stairs, and revegetation plan which includes the replacement of the four trees to be removed, shall be completed by June 15, 2020. If this date cannot be accomplished the applicant must contact the Code Enforcement Officer, and have a new date of completion established.

  1. Best Management Practices shall be kept in place until the project is completed. There must be a person certified by the DEP in erosion control practices on site during the project.
  2. All material from the existing wall and stairs to be removed shall be taken out of Shapleigh and disposed of properly.

12. Additional requirement:

• A building permit must be obtained from the Code Enforcement Officer, prior to the construction of the new wall.

Motion:

After careful consideration and a review of all material presented to the Board, a motion was made on Tuesday, November 12, 2019, to approve the Conditional Use Permit to replace the existing retaining wall, which will be 64 inches in height and a total of 50 feet in length, and stairs per the plans provided, on property known as Tax Map 44, Lot 25 with three conditions.

Vote:

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 11/12/2019 Page 6 of 27

By a unanimous vote of 5 – 0, the motion to approve the Conditional to replace the existing retaining wall, which will be 64 inches in height and a total of 50 feet in length, and stairs per the plans provided, on property known as Tax Map 44, Lot 25 with three conditions, was accepted.

Decision:

The Conditional Use Permit to replace the existing retaining wall, which will be 64 inches in height and a total of 50 feet in length, and stairs per the plans provided, on property known as Tax Map 44, Lot 25 with three conditions, was approved.

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

Conditional Use Permit – Earth Moving in the Shoreland District to Replace Retaining Wall – Map 44, Lot 24 (18 Silver Lake Road) & Map 44, Lot 23 (16 Camp Road) – Kevin & Sheila Cash, Applicants & Property Owners

Mr. and Mrs. Cash were present for the review of the application. Mr. Pratt also sat in on the review of the application, as he was the contractor doing the work.

Previously provided along with the application for 16 Camp Road (Map 44, Lot 23) were three pictures of an existing block wall, along with a sketch plan. The sketch plan depicts the existing structures, septic tank & leachfield location, well point, and four retaining walls. Two located between the structure and Camp Road and two between the structure and Silver Lake. The wall closest to Silver Lake appears to be between 5 and 9 feet from the high water mark.

The detailed description of the project is as follows:

We purchased this property 16 Camp Road in 1984. Around 1990 we installed a block wall in front of an existing stone wall that had been collapsing in some areas. We believe over the years due to the hydrostatic ground pressure from the hill behind it has caused the wall to bulge forward. Also over time the high water level and ice has caused the bottom course of block to disintegrate. The ground also in the front of this wall now erodes every spring. The top course of the wall now extends approximately 1 foot from its original placement. We feel this is now becoming a safety issue.

This evening Mr. Pratt provided the board with an engineered drawing of the proposed wall, drafted by Eric Merluzzi, PE #13003, of 184 Rowenton Road, Wentworth, NH 03282. The drawing was entitled: Proposed Retaining Walls – Pratt & Cash, 177 Silver Lake Road & 16 Camp Road, Shapleigh, ME. The client was noted as Pepin Precast, and the plan was dated November 12, 2019. The plan provides details for the construction of the new wall, including Site Preparation, Leveling Pad & Bottom Block, Wall Drain, Backfilling & Compaction, and General Wall Layout & Construction.

Roger A. stated that the board was also reviewing this application under §105-39 ‘Earth removal and filling for activities other than mineral exploration and extraction’, Section D ‘Earthmoving in the Shoreland District’. Roger stated it was due to earth moving greater than 10 cubic yards required Planning Board approval.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 11/12/2019 Page 7 of 27

Roger A. stated the engineered plan was provided for this wall by Mr. Pratt, as requested by the board at the last meeting. Mr. Cash noted there were no trees being removed for this project.

Roger A. stated the date of completion for this wall would be the same as for Mr. Pratt, June 15, 2020. Mr. Pratt and the applicants agreed with that date.

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

Previously provided along with the application for 18 Silver Lake Road (Map 44, Lot 24) was a picture of the existing stone wall to be replaced, along with a sketch plan. The sketch plan depicted the location of the existing structure, septic tank & leachfield location, well point, and existing retaining walls. One wall appears to be 2 feet from the high water mark at its closest point and a second one appears to be approximately 10 feet from the high water mark. The width of the property at the shoreline is noted as 50 feet. Also noted on the plan is the location of Silver Lake Road.

The detailed description of the project is as follows:

We purchased the property on 18 Silver Lake Road in 2005, which was beyond repair due to its lack of use over many years. At this time we found two existing stone walls both located on the lake side of the structure. One being 14’ from the shoreline, the other at shoreline which was almost completely covered and buried due to years of high water issues. This past spring was the worst we have experienced with the erosion and wall collapsing. We feel with the replacement to a Loc-Block system it would finally stop the issue we face every spring.

This evening Mr. Cash provided the board with a sketch plan which included the location of the two retaining walls and the location of the trees on the property; one depicting the existing trees to be removed and the other where the replacement trees will be placed. It was noted that three trees would be removed and replaced.

Roger A. asked if the replanting schedule would be the same as for the Pratt wall, to be completed by June 15, 2020? Mr. Pratt agreed that would be appropriate. Roger said any change of date would go to the CEO. The board agreed.

Madge B. stated that this wall is rocks and they are being removed from Shapleigh. Mr. Pratt agreed they were rocks and he would remove them.

Roger A. stated that the review under §105-73.G ‘Standards applicable to conditional uses would be the same for both properties, Map 44, Lot 23 & 24, he reviewed as follows:

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. The wall(s) will help to conserve the habitat by stopping erosion and sedimentation from going into the lake.

2) The use will conserve shore cover and visual, as well as actual, access to water bodies. Roger A. stated that it will.

3) The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Roger A. stated that it is. The Comprehensive Plan wants to make certain the water bodies in Shapleigh remain healthy by preventing erosion.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 11/12/2019 Page 8 of 27

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 the existing rocks and stones from Map 44, Lot 24 will be taken out of Shapleigh. Roger stated on Map 44, Lot 23, the existing block wall will be moved to a new location and be reused.

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 the wall on Map 44, Lot 23 has been designed by a licensed engineer to retain the existing earth and mitigate stormwater by way of stone behind the wall. The remaining property is not being altered to create a stormwater issue. The wall on Map 44, Lot 24 will also be built to mitigate stormwater, using stone behind it.

9) Adequate provisions to control soil erosion and sedimentation have been made. Roger A. stated best management practices will be used until the area is stabilized.

10) There is adequate water supply to meet the demands of the proposed use and for fire protection purposes. Roger A. stated there is but it is not a requirement for this project.

11) The provisions for buffer strips and on-site landscaping provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development, such as noise, glare, fumes, dust, odors and the like. Roger A. stated there is minimal vegetation being removed from site. Trees being removed will be replaced per the plan(s) provided on Map 44, Lot 24, there is no tree removal on Lot 23.

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:

1. The project(s), the removal and replacement of the existing wall(s) and stairs, and revegetation plan which includes the replacement of the three trees to be removed on Map 44, Lot 24, shall be completed by June 15, 2020. If this date cannot be accomplished the applicant must contact the Code Enforcement Officer, and have a new date of completion established.

  1. Best Management Practices shall be kept in place until the project is completed. There must be a person certified by the DEP in erosion control practices on site during the project.
  2. All material from the existing wall(s) and stairs on Map 44, Lot 24 to be removed shall be taken out of Shapleigh and disposed of properly. Material from the existing wall(s) on Map 44, Lot 23 shall be reused beyond the 100 foot shoreline setback.

Madge B. moved for approval of the Conditional Use Permit for earth moving in the Shoreland District to replace the existing wall(s) and stairs on Map 44, Lot 23 & wall(s) on Map 44, Lot 24 per the plans provided, with the above stated conditions. Maggie M. 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. By a vote of 5 – 0, the motion passed unanimously.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 11/12/2019 Page 9 of 27

The Findings of Facts

1. The owner of Shapleigh Tax Map 44, Lot 23 (16 Camp Road) is Kevin E., Sheila A. Revocable Trust, mailing address of 15 Susan Lane, Rochester NH 03867.

2. The applicants are Sheila A. & Kevin E. Cash, Trustees, of 15 Susan Lane, Rochester, NH 03867.

3. The property known as Map 44, Lot 23 is located in the Shoreland District and according to the assessor the property contains .22 acres.

4. The application description reads as follows:

We purchased this property 16 Camp Road in 1984. Around 1990 we installed a block wall in front of an existing stone wall that had been collapsing in some areas. We believe over the years due to the hydrostatic ground pressure from the hill behind it has caused the wall to bulge forward. Also over time the high water level and ice has caused the bottom course of block to disintegrate. The ground also in the front of this wall now erodes every spring. The top course of the wall now extends approximately 1 foot from its original placement. We feel this is now becoming a safety issue.

5. Received were three pictures of an existing block wall, along with a sketch plan. The sketch plan depicts the existing structures, septic tank & leachfield location, well point, and four retaining walls. Two located between the structure and Camp Road and two between the structure and Silver Lake. The wall closest to Silver Lake appears to be between 5 and 9 feet from the high water mark.

6. Received an engineered drawing of the proposed wall, drafted by Eric Merluzzi, PE #13003, of 184 Rowenton Road, Wentworth, NH 03282. The drawing was entitled: Proposed Retaining Walls – Pratt & Cash, 177 Silver Lake Road & 16 Camp Road, Shapleigh, ME. The client was noted as Pepin Precast, and the plan was dated November 12, 2019. The plan provides details for the construction of the new wall, including Site Preparation, Leveling Pad & Bottom Block, Wall Drain, Backfilling & Compaction, and General Wall Layout & Construction.

7. Received was the DEP Permit by Rule dated as accepted by the MDEP on 10/15/19. The brief description of the project on the application stated: Wall Replacement

8. The Planning Board reviewed §105-39 ‘Earth removal and filling for activities other than mineral exploration and extraction’, and §105-73 ‘Conditional Use Permits’ and concurred the application and information as presented met the performance standards, with conditions.

9. A notice was mailed to all abutters within 500 feet of the property on October 9, 2019. Meetings were held on Tuesday, October 8, 2019, Tuesday October 22, 2019 and Tuesday, November 12, 2019. A site inspection was done by members on Friday, October 18, 2019.

10. The Planning Board unanimously agreed to approve the Conditional Use Permit to replace the existing retaining wall(s), 64 inches in height and a total of 50 feet in length, and stairs per the plans provided, on property known as Tax Map 44, Lot 23, with conditions.

11. The conditions of approval are:

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 11/12/2019 Page 10 of 27

1. The project, the removal and replacement of the existing wall(s), per the plan provided, shall be completed by June 15, 2020. If this date cannot be accomplished the applicant must contact the Code Enforcement Officer, and have a new date of completion established.

  1. Best Management Practices shall be kept in place until the project is completed. There must be a person certified by the DEP in erosion control practices on site during the project.
  2. All material from the existing wall(s) on Map 44, Lot 23 shall be reused beyond the 100 foot shoreline setback, or taken out of Shapleigh and disposed of properly.

12. Additional requirement:

• A building permit must be obtained from the Code Enforcement Officer, prior to the construction of the new wall.

Motion:

After careful consideration and a review of all material presented to the Board, a motion was made on Tuesday, November 12, 2019, to approve the Conditional Use Permit to replace the existing retaining wall(s), which will be 64 inches in height and a total of 50 feet in length, and stairs per the plans provided, on property known as Tax Map 44, Lot 23 with three conditions.

Vote:

By a unanimous vote of 5 – 0, the motion to approve the Conditional to replace the existing retaining wall(s), which will be 64 inches in height and a total of 50 feet in length, and stairs per the plans provided, on property known as Tax Map 44, Lot 23 with three conditions, was accepted.

Decision:

The Conditional Use Permit to replace the existing retaining wall(s), which will be 64 inches in height and a total of 50 feet in length, and stairs per the plans provided, on property known as Tax Map 44, Lot 23 with three conditions, was approved.

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

The Findings of Facts

1. The owner of Shapleigh Tax Map 44, Lot 24 (18 Silver Lake Road) is Kevin E., Sheila A. Revocable Trust, mailing address of 15 Susan Lane, Rochester NH 03867.

2. The applicants are Sheila A. & Kevin E. Cash, Trustees, of 15 Susan Lane, Rochester, NH 03867.

3. The property known as Map 44, Lot 24 is located in the Shoreland District and according to the assessor the property contains .19 acres.

4. The application description reads as follows:

We purchased the property on 18 Silver Lake Road in 2005, which was beyond repair due to its lack of use over many years. At this time we found two existing stone walls both located on the lake side of the structure. One being 14’ from the shoreline, the other at shoreline which was almost completely

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 11/12/2019 Page 11 of 27

covered and buried due to years of high water issues. This past spring was the worst we have experienced with the erosion and wall collapsing. We feel with the replacement to a Loc-Block system it would finally stop the issue we face every spring.

5. Received was a picture of the existing stone wall to be replaced, along with a sketch plan. The sketch plan depicted the location of the existing structure, septic tank & leachfield location, well point, and existing retaining walls. One wall appears to be 2 feet at its closest point from the high water mark and a second one appears to be approximately 10 feet from the high water mark. The width of the property at the shoreline is noted as 50 feet. Also noted on the plan is the location of Silver Lake Road.

6. Received a sketch plan which included the location of the two retaining walls and the location of the trees on the property; one depicting the existing trees to be removed and the other where the replacement trees will be placed. It was noted that three trees would be removed and replaced.

7. Received was the DEP Permit by Rule dated as accepted by the MDEP on 10/15/19. The brief description of the project on the application stated: Wall Replacement

8. The Planning Board reviewed §105-39 ‘Earth removal and filling for activities other than mineral exploration and extraction’, and §105-73 ‘Conditional Use Permits’ and concurred the application and information as presented met the performance standards, with conditions.

9. A notice was mailed to all abutters within 500 feet of the property on October 9, 2019. Meetings were held on Tuesday, October 8, 2019, Tuesday October 22, 2019 and Tuesday, November 12, 2019. A site inspection was done by members on Friday, October 18, 2019.

10. The Planning Board unanimously agreed to approve the Conditional Use Permit to replace the existing retaining wall(s), less than four feet in height and a total of 50 feet in length, per the plans provided, on property known as Tax Map 44, Lot 24, with conditions.

11. The conditions of approval are:

1. The project, the removal and replacement of the existing wall(s), and revegetation which includes the replacement of the three trees to be removed on Map 44, Lot 24, shall be completed by June 15, 2020. If this date cannot be accomplished the applicant must contact the Code Enforcement Officer, and have a new date of completion established.

  1. Best Management Practices shall be kept in place until the project is completed. There must be a person certified by the DEP in erosion control practices on site during the project.
  2. All material from the existing wall(s) on Map 44, Lot 24 to be removed shall be taken out of Shapleigh and disposed of properly.

12. Additional requirement:

• A building permit must be obtained from the Code Enforcement Officer, prior to the construction of the new wall.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 11/12/2019 Page 12 of 27

Motion:

After careful consideration and a review of all material presented to the Board, a motion was made on Tuesday, November 12, 2019, to approve the Conditional Use Permit to replace the existing retaining wall(s), which will be less than four feet in height and a total of 50 feet in length, per the plans provided, on property known as Tax Map 44, Lot 24 with three conditions.

Vote:

By a unanimous vote of 5 – 0, the motion to approve the Conditional to replace the existing retaining wall(s), which will be less than four feet in height and a total of 50 feet in length, per the plans provided, on property known as Tax Map 44, Lot 24 with three conditions, was accepted.

Decision:

The Conditional Use Permit to replace the existing retaining wall(s), which will be less than four feet in height and a total of 50 feet in length, per the plans provided, on property known as Tax Map 44, Lot 24 with three conditions, was approved.

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

After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit – Earth Moving in the Shoreland District to Replace Retaining Wall – Map 44, Lot 32 (210 Silver Lake Road) – Brian Varney, Applicant & Property Owner

Mr. Varney was unable to be at the meeting this evening. Chris Carbone, the contractor on the project was present to represent him.

Provided along with the application, was the signed DEP Permit by Rule, Description: Looking to replace hazardous retaining wall & patio, dated as accepted on October 7, 2019. A sketch plan was provided depicting a 6’ x 10’ shed; location of the leach field & subsurface wastewater disposal system (a copy of the actual SWDS application, dated 11/5/04, drafted by John Large, SE #7 was provide as well); 24’ x 28’ house & 5’ x 16’ porch; the location of four retaining walls, one wall to be replaced; the location of the well & patio to be replaced; and the location of the beach, sandy area, mulch/blueberry bushes & mulch/plant areas, all in relation to the lake, side lot lines & Silver Lake Road. It is noted on the plan that the house is 70 feet from the lake.

The Detailed Description of the Project is as follows:

The activity that we are proposing to perform is the replacement of an existing 31’ long, 4’ high (at its highest point) timber railroad tie retaining wall and an approx. 24’ x 24’ concrete/paver walkway and patio that has become a hazard to the home and homeowner. The new wall is to be

located in the same location as the existing wall and the dimensions are to remain the same. The concrete and paver walkway and patio are to be replaced with concrete pavers manufactured by

Genest concrete and are to remain in the same location with the same dimensions as the existing. All MDEP erosion control practices are to be used during construction of the project and monitored by Roger Pratt a MDEP erosion control certified contractor with certification #367.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 11/12/2019 Page 13 of 27

Mike Carbone from Action Property Services, Inc. has my permission to act on my behalf at the planning board meeting.

The board requested at the previous meeting on October 22, 2019, the dimensions of the wall still needing to be replaced, both the length and width, as well as the dimensions of the landing area; and what would be used to restore and stabilize the area. In addition, the board would also need a date of completion for the entire project, including any revegetation.

Roger A. opened the application review by stating Mr. Varney had an after-the-fact permit. Chris Carbone was representing Mr. Varney this evening, and an email from Mr. Varney, dated 11/8/19 stated that Mr. Carbone would be attending the meeting.

Roger A. stated that at the last meeting the board noted there was no evidence at the site visit that there was a patio on site, so the board asked Mr. Varney what he would be putting in the area that was noted as ‘patio’ on the plan. Roger also said the board needed to know the size of the wall that was going in.

Mr. Carbone presented a photo to the board before the area was disturbed. The board now had a total of three pictures, one from google earth and two others, none of which clearly demonstrated that a patio was present on site. The pictures did show the walkway to the door. Mr. Carbone asked if they could do the patio, walkway, and the wall or just the walkway and the wall. Roger A. stated the patio was not going to be allowed, and noted that that was clearly stated at the previous meeting. Mr. Carbone stated that he did not attend that meeting.

The board members reviewed the photo’s one additional time. Madge B. asked if there was a picture that showed the wall? There was none. Mr. Carbone stated that it was old railroad ties. Roland L. noted the area was overgrown with plants. Mr. Carbone agreed and said part of the wall had fallen over. He said the issue was water, there was ice buildup getting into the basement. Roger showed Madge where the wall was on the picture.

Roger A. asked how long the wall would be? Mr. Carbone stated the wall was approximately 30 feet long. He said the new material would be precast concrete block. Madge B. asked if there was a curve? Mr. Carbone said that yes, there was a curve to go around the tree, so it wouldn’t have to be removed. Madge asked if a curve can be made with the block. Mr. Carbone stated that yes, you could, they are made to be able to do that. Ann H. asked what kind of tree was there? Mr. Carbone stated it was a cluster of White Birch. Ann asked if the roots would grow into the wall? Mr. Carbone did not believe so.

Ann H. asked if they dug down deeper (the area between the house and the wall) to get rid of the water problem? Mr. Carbone said the grade was a problem, so the water flow was going into the basement, heavy rains were a problem.

Madge B. asked because there would be no patio, what was going in that area instead? Mr. Carbone stated that Mr. Varney had spoken with someone at the DEP and they stated that the area could be put back as grass. Mr. Carbone said that if only the walkway was going to be allowed, Mr. Varney said he would be using grass.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 11/12/2019 Page 14 of 27

Roger A. said the walkway from the side walkway to the rear door, he believed could be 4 feet in width in order to access the door. He stated that the wall could be up to 31 feet in length. Mr. Carbone asked if he could go wider at the door? Roger stated that he thought it should be four feet the entire length. Ann H. stated that Mr. Varney at the last meeting was asking for a patio, so perhaps that is why he was requesting

a landing area? She said the board wasn’t allowing the patio. Madge B. stated that she saw just a walkway and then grass.

Steve F. said there appeared to be a vegetated area between the existing wall and the proposed grass area. Steve asked if the board should get a sketch of exactly what Mr. Varney was going to be doing now? Steve asked Mr. Carbone if he intended to do the work right now? Mr. Carbone said Mr. Varney wanted to get it in before winter, as least the walkway and the wall.

Steve F. asked how the board wanted to move forward? Steve said he didn’t have a problem with not stretching this out another two weeks, he felt Mr. Carbone could add to the sketch provided, as to what he was going to be doing, so the CEO has a plan to go by. Mr. Carbone said the board wants the walkway, grass and? Steve stated grass, blueberry bushes, and a revegetated area.

Madge B. asked if the walkway coming down along the house was not changing? Steve F. said, correct. Roger A. said it was not removed, only the wall on the side was removed. Madge asked where it says mulch and blueberry bushes, is this part of what the board is approving? Mr. Carbone said that area was already existing, what he was doing was above that area. She said Steve mentioned blueberry bushes, so she thought some were being added. Steve said what he was speaking of was that instead of removing the existing blueberry bushes and bringing the lawn to the edge of the wall, he wanted to keep that area as it is, and bring the lawn up to that area. Mr. Carbone agreed and stated there was a mulch bed there as well.

Roger A. stated that there would be no more than 31 feet of wall, and the walkway would be no wider than four feet in width. Members waited for Mr. Carbone to add the information to the plan. Mr. Carbone sketched in an area approximately 18’ x 28’ for the grass, 4’ x 20’ for the walkway and the new wall would be 4’ high x 31 linear feet long. The words ‘patio to be replaced’ were crossed off.

Roger A. stated this was an after-the-fact permit and when reviewing §105-39, it speaks of stabilizing the area as soon as possible; Roger noted that the silt fence has been put up.

Roger A. asked what a date of completion would be? Mr. Carbone stated that if the projects gets shut down by winter, then he could be done by June 15, 2019.

Ann H. asked if the board needed to address the patio blocks he won’t be using for a patio? Board members did not believe so.

Roger A. stated the conditions of approval would be as follows:

  1. The project, the replacement of the deteriorating railroad tie wall, and revegetation which includes the new lawn on Map 44, Lot 32, shall be completed by June 15, 2020. If this date cannot be accomplished the applicant must contact the Code Enforcement Officer, and have a new date of completion established.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 11/12/2019 Page 15 of 27

  1. Best Management Practices shall be kept in place until the project is completed. There must be a person certified by the DEP in erosion control practices on site during the project.

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

1) The use will not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, birds or other wildlife habitat. Roger A. stated, it will not. The wall will help to conserve the habitat by stopping erosion and sedimentation from going into the lake, once completed.

2) The use will conserve shore cover and visual, as well as actual, access to water bodies. Roger A. stated that it will.

3) The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Roger A. stated that it is. The Comprehensive Plan wants to make certain the water bodies in Shapleigh remain healthy by preventing erosion.

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 the solid waste has already been disposed of outside of the Shoreland District. (Mr. Carbone stated it went to Carroll Paving.)

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 the stormwater was running from the neighboring property onto this property. By putting up the new wall it will keep the stormwater from coming from the neighboring property and this property is level, so stormwater will remain on site. In addition, the plantings will help to absorb stormwater.

9) Adequate provisions to control soil erosion and sedimentation have been made. Roger A. stated best management practices will be used until the area is stabilized, currently silt fencing is in place and remain until the project is completed. (Mr. Carbone stated that he will get the property close to grade and put straw on top until spring to prevent erosion.)

10) There is adequate water supply to meet the demands of the proposed use and for fire protection purposes. Roger A. stated there is but it is not a requirement for this project.

11) The provisions for buffer strips and on-site landscaping provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development, such as noise, glare, fumes, dust, odors and the like. Roger A. stated there is minimal noise during the project, no glare, fumes, dust or odors.

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

Madge B. wanted it in the record that Mr. Pratt will be acting as supervisor on this project, where he is MDEP certified in erosion control.

Roland L. stated that because this is in the Shoreland District, no fertilizer can be used on the lawn.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 11/12/2019 Page 16 of 27

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

1. The project, the replacement of the deteriorating railroad tie wall, walkway and revegetation which includes the new lawn on Map 44, Lot 32, shall be completed by June 15, 2020. If this date cannot be accomplished the applicant must contact the Code Enforcement Officer, and have a new date of completion established.

2. Best Management Practices shall be kept in place until the project is completed. There must be a person certified by the DEP in erosion control practices on site during the project.

3. No fertilizer shall be used on the property.

Madge B. moved for approval of the After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit for earth moving in the Shoreland District to replace the existing railroad tie wall and walkway, and revegetate an 18’ x 28’ area on Map 44, Lot 32, per the plans provided, with the above stated conditions. Maggie M. 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. By a vote of 5 – 0, the motion passed unanimously.

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

The Findings of Facts

1. The owner of Shapleigh Tax Map 44, Lot 32 (210 Silver Lake Road), is Brian Varney of 4 Margaret Lane, Lee, NH 03861.

2. The property is located in the Shoreland District and according to the assessor the property contains .12 acres.

3. The application description reads as follows: The activity that we are proposing to perform is the replacement of an existing 31’ long, 4’ high (at its highest point) timber railroad tie retaining wall and an approx. 24’ x 24’ concrete/paver walkway and patio that has become a hazard to the home and homeowner. The new wall is to be located in the same location as the existing wall and the dimensions are to remain the same. The concrete and paver walkway and patio are to be replaced with concrete pavers manufactured by Genest concrete and are to remain in the same location with the same dimensions as the existing. All MDEP erosion control practices are to be used during construction of the project and monitored by Roger Pratt a MDEP erosion control certified contractor with certification #367. Mike Carbone from Action Property Services, Inc. has my permission to act on my behalf at the planning board meeting.

4. Received was the signed DEP Permit by Rule, Description: Looking to replace hazardous retaining wall & patio, dated as accepted on October 7, 2019. A sketch plan was provided depicting a 6’ x 10’ shed; location of the leach field & subsurface wastewater disposal system (a copy of the actual SWDS application, dated 11/5/04, drafted by John Large, SE #7 was provide as well); 24’ x 28’ house & 5’ x 16’ porch; the location of four retaining walls, one wall to be replaced; the location of the well & patio to be replaced; and the location of the beach, sandy area, mulch/blueberry bushes & mulch/plant areas, all in relation to the lake, side lot lines & Silver Lake Road. It is noted on the plan that the house is 70 feet from the lake.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 11/12/2019 Page 17 of 27

5. Received was a photo depicting the site before the area was disturbed. The board received a total of three pictures, one from google earth and two others, none of which clearly demonstrated that a patio was present on site. The pictures did show the walkway to the door. Mr. Carbone asked if they could do the patio, walkway and the wall or just the walkway and the wall. Roger A. stated the patio was not going to be allowed, and noted that that was clearly stated at the meeting on October 22, 2019.

6. Received during the meeting on November 12, 2019 was the sketch plan, an area approximately 18’ x 28’ for grass was added, a 4’ x 28’ area for the walkway to the back door, and the new wall will be 4’ high x 31 linear feet long. The words ‘patio to be replaced’ were crossed off the sketch plan.

7. Received was the DEP Permit by Rule dated as accepted by the MDEP on 10/7/19. The brief description of the project on the application stated: Looking to replace hazardous retaining wall & patio.

8. The Planning Board reviewed §105-39 ‘Earth removal and filling for activities other than mineral exploration and extraction’, and §105-73 ‘Conditional Use Permits’ and concurred the application and information as presented met the performance standards, with conditions.

9. A notice was mailed to all abutters within 500 feet of the property on October 23, 2019. Meetings were held on Tuesday October 22, 2019 and Tuesday, November 12, 2019. A site inspection was done by members on Friday, October 18, 2019.

10. The Planning Board unanimously agreed to approve the After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit to replace the existing retaining wall, which will be 4 feet in height by 31 linear feet, a walkway along the rear of the structure 4’ x 20’ in size, and a new lawn area 18’ x 28’, per the per the plans provided, on property known as Tax Map 44, Lot 32, with conditions.

11. The conditions of approval are:

1. The project, the replacement of the deteriorating railroad tie wall, and revegetation which includes the new lawn on Map 44, Lot 32, shall be completed by June 15, 2020. If this date cannot be accomplished the applicant must contact the Code Enforcement Officer, and have a new date of completion established.

2. Best Management Practices shall be kept in place until the project is completed. There must be a person certified by the DEP in erosion control practices on site during the project.

3. No fertilizer shall be used on the property.

12. Additional requirement:

• A building permit must be obtained from the Code Enforcement Officer, prior to the construction of the new wall.

Motion:

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 11/12/2019 Page 18 of 27

After careful consideration and a review of all material presented to the Board, a motion was made on Tuesday, November 12, 2019, to approve the After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit to replace the existing retaining wall, which will be 4 feet in height by 31 linear feet, a walkway along the rear of the structure 4’ x 20’ in size, and a new lawn area 18’ x 28’, per the per the plans provided, on property known as Tax Map 44, Lot 32, with three conditions.

Vote:

By a unanimous vote of 5 – 0, the motion to approve the After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit to replace the existing retaining wall, which will be 4 feet in height by 31 linear feet, a walkway along the rear of the structure 4’ x 20’ in size, and a new lawn area 18’ x 28’, per the per the plans provided, on property known as Tax Map 44, Lot 32, was accepted.

Decision:

The After-the-Fact Conditional Use Permit to replace the existing retaining wall, which will be 4 feet in height by 31 linear feet, a walkway along the rear of the structure 4’ x 20’ in size, and a new lawn area 18’ x 28’, per the per the plans provided, on property known as Tax Map 44, Lot 32, was approved.

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

Conditional Use Permit – Earth Moving in the Shoreland District to Replace Retaining Wall – Map 44, Lot 27 (188 Silver Lake Road) – Scott & Patricia Phelan, Applicant & Property Owner

Mr. and Mrs. Phelan were present for the review of the application.

Provided along with the application, was a sketch plan depicting the existing 22’ x 38’ camp and its location in relation to the side lots lines, Silver Lake Road and Silver Lake; the location of a 10’ x 10’ shed & 6’ x 8’ shed; the well and the location of the retaining wall along the water’s edge, along with a set of stairs. The Permit by Rule was provided, which described the project as: Replacement of Retaining Wall, dated as mailed 10/13/2019, and pictures of the existing retaining wall were also provided.

Additionally provided, were two letters from Mr. Phelan. One stated the reason for the application, that being ‘I am applying for a permit to replace my existing retaining wall at my property 188 Silver Lake Road, Shapleigh Maine. The existing wall is cracked and deteriorating. We are concerned that it could collapse with another harsh winter’. The second letter stated the vegetation remediation, that being ‘In the area of the project there is little to no vegetation that will be disturbed’.

The application detailed description of the project states: Replace cracked and deteriorating retaining wall.

The Planning Board received the signed Permit by Rule, via CEO Demers, dated as accepted on 10/23/2019. The PBR in an attached letter between the applicant and Claire Briggs, Environmental Specialist in the Bureau of Land Resources, DEP, states that the existing wall is 50 feet long by 4 feet high, and that the stairs will be replaced as well.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 11/12/2019 Page 19 of 27

This evening, Mr. Phelan provided the board with two new sketch plans. One depicted the existing camp, concrete patio area, deck, stairs, block wall and rock walls, as well as the existing trees in the area of the wall(s), as well as a proposed tree to be removed near Silver Lake Road and the two trees to be removed along the wall(s). The second sketch depicted the camp, proposed new wall(s), patio area, stairs, and location of the three new trees to be planted, two approximately 8 feet from the wall(s) and one located near Silver Lake Road. In addition, four pictures were provided.

It was noted by Mr. Pratt that this wall will be constructed the same way as his wall, using the same material and stairs. The same engineering will be used as presented for his wall.

Roger A. asked if board members had any questions for Mr. Phelan? There were none.

Roger A. asked what would be used to backfill behind the wall? Mr. Pratt said it was the same as his wall, using stone. Mr. Pratt said he was removing the existing wooden deck because he would be getting into that area to replace the wall. Mr. Pratt stated the new patio would actually be smaller than the existing. Mr. Pratt noted the existing concrete patio will also go, along with some steps, and the concrete will be replaced with pavers.

Roger A. asked if the plantings will be completed by June 15, 2020? Mr. Pratt stated that should work. Roger said a change in date would go to the CEO.

Steve F. asked about the stairs? Mr. Pratt stated that the stairs were moving down to the end to line up with the dock, and also they would be moving back to line up with the wall. Madge B. asked about the area that said ‘proposed new’, was that a new patio? Roger A. said yes, because the concrete patio was being removed. Mr. Pratt agreed, and said when the wall is straightened out, it will affect the existing concrete. Madge wanted to be sure the proposed new patio area would not be bigger than the existing. Mr. Phelan stated that the new patio area would be 30 to 40 square feet less than the existing.

Roger A. asked if there were any additional questions? There were none. Roger stated the same sections of the ordinance apply, those being §105-39 and §105-73. The applicant was before the board due to earth moving in excess of 10 cubic yards in the Shoreland District.

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

1) The use will not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, birds or other wildlife habitat. Roger A. stated, it will not. The wall will help to conserve the habitat by stopping erosion and sedimentation from going into the lake.

2) The use will conserve shore cover and visual, as well as actual, access to water bodies. Roger A. stated that it will.

3) The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Roger A. stated that it is. The Comprehensive Plan wants to make certain the water bodies in Shapleigh remain healthy by preventing erosion.

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.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 11/12/2019 Page 20 of 27

6) Adequate provision for the disposal of all wastewater and solid waste has been made. Roger A. stated the existing material will be taken out of Shapleigh.

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 the new wall(s) will be designed to retain the existing earth and mitigate stormwater by way of stone behind the wall. The remaining property is not being altered to create a stormwater issue.

9) Adequate provisions to control soil erosion and sedimentation have been made. Roger A. stated best management practices will be used until the area is stabilized.

10) There is adequate water supply to meet the demands of the proposed use and for fire protection purposes. Roger A. stated there is but it is not a requirement for this project.

11) The provisions for buffer strips and on-site landscaping provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development, such as noise, glare, fumes, dust, odors and the like. Roger A. stated there is minimal vegetation being removed from site. Trees being removed will be replaced per the plan(s) provided.

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:

1. The project, the removal and replacement of the existing wall(s), patio, and stairs, and revegetation plan which includes the replacement of the three trees to be removed, shall be completed by June 15, 2020. If this date cannot be accomplished the applicant must contact the Code Enforcement Officer, and have a new date of completion established.

  1. Best Management Practices shall be kept in place until the project is completed. There must be a person certified by the DEP in erosion control practices on site during the project.
  2. All material from the existing wall(s), patios and stairs to be removed shall be taken out of Shapleigh and disposed of properly.

Madge B. moved for approval of the Conditional Use Permit for earth moving in the Shoreland District to replace the existing wall(s), patio, and stairs per the plans provided, on property known as Map 44, Lot 27, with the above stated conditions. Maggie M. 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. By a vote of 5 – 0, the motion passed unanimously.

Nothing further was discussed.

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

The Findings of Facts

1. The owner of Shapleigh Tax Map 44, Lot 27 (188 Silver Lake Road), is Scott D. Phelan, of 8 Valley Street, Saugus, MA 01906.

2. The property is located in the Shoreland District and according to the assessor the property contains .14 acres.

3. The application description reads as follows: Replace cracked and deteriorating retaining wall.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 11/12/2019 Page 21 of 27

4. Received were two letters from Mr. Phelan. One stated the reason for the application, that being ‘I am applying for a permit to replace my existing retaining wall at my property 188 Silver Lake Road, Shapleigh Maine. The existing wall is cracked and deteriorating. We are concerned that it could collapse with another harsh winter’. The second letter stated the vegetation remediation, that being ‘In the area of the project there is little to no vegetation that will be disturbed’.

5. Received was a sketch plan depicting the existing 22’ x 38’ camp and its location in relation to the side lot lines, Silver Lake Road and Silver Lake; the location of a 10’ x 10’ shed & 6’ x 8’ shed; the well and the location of the retaining wall along the water’s edge, along with a set of stairs. The Permit by Rule was provided, which described the project as: Replacement of Retaining Wall, dated as mailed 10/13/2019, and pictures of the existing retaining wall were also provided.

6. Received were two new sketch plans. One depicted the existing camp, concrete patio area, deck, stairs, block wall and rock walls, as well as the existing trees in the area of the wall(s), as well as a proposed tree to be removed near Silver Lake Road and the two trees to be removed along the wall(s). The second sketch depicted the camp, proposed new wall(s), patio area, stairs, and location of the three new trees to be planted, two approximately 8 feet from the wall(s) and one located near Silver Lake Road. In addition, four pictures were provided.

7. Received was the DEP Permit by Rule, dated as accepted on 10/23/2019. The PBR in an attached letter between the applicant and Claire Briggs, Environmental Specialist in the Bureau of Land Resources, DEP, states that the existing wall is 50 feet long by 4 feet high, and that the stairs will be replaced as well.

8. The Planning Board reviewed §105-39 ‘Earth removal and filling for activities other than mineral exploration and extraction’, and §105-73 ‘Conditional Use Permits’ and concurred the application and information as presented met the performance standards, with conditions.

9. A notice was mailed to all abutters within 500 feet of the property on October 23, 2019. Meetings were held on Tuesday October 22, 2019 and Tuesday, November 12, 2019. A site inspection was done by members on Friday, October 18, 2019.

10. The Planning Board unanimously agreed to approve the Conditional Use Permit to replace the existing retaining wall(s), which will be 4 feet in height and 50 feet in length, patio, and stairs per the plans provided, on property known as Tax Map 44, Lot 27, with conditions.

11. The conditions of approval are:

  1. The project, the removal and replacement of the existing wall(s), patio, and stairs, and revegetation plan which includes the replacement of the three trees to be removed, shall be completed by June 15, 2020. If this date cannot be accomplished the applicant must contact the Code Enforcement Officer, and have a new date of completion established.
  2. Best Management Practices shall be kept in place until the project is completed. There must be a person certified by the DEP in erosion control practices on site during the project.
  3. All material from the existing wall(s), patio, deck, and stairs to be removed shall be taken out of Shapleigh and disposed of properly.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 11/12/2019 Page 22 of 27

12. Additional requirement:

• A building permit must be obtained from the Code Enforcement Officer, prior to the construction of the new wall.

Motion:

After careful consideration and a review of all material presented to the Board, a motion was made on Tuesday, November 12, 2019, to approve the Conditional Use Permit to replace the existing retaining wall(s), which will be four feet in height and a total of 50 feet in length, patio, and stairs per the plans provided, on property known as Tax Map 44, Lot 27 with three conditions.

Vote:

By a unanimous vote of 5 – 0, the motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit to replace the existing retaining wall(s), which will be four feet in height and a total of 50 feet in length, patio, and stairs per the plans provided, on property known as Tax Map 44, Lot 27 with three conditions, was accepted.

Decision:

The Conditional Use Permit to replace the existing retaining wall(s), which will be four feet in height and a total of 50 feet in length, patio, and stairs per the plans provided, on property known as Tax Map 44, Lot 27 with three conditions, was approved.

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

Other:

Possible Ordinance Changes to Allow for Low Retaining Walls in the Shoreland District and to Allow for a New Accessory Structure in the Shoreland District

Board members reviewed the two ordinances that they were given at the last meeting. They are as follows:

Proposed Addition to the Zoning Ordinance

§105-4. Nonconformance

D. Nonconforming structures.

(9) Low Retaining Walls in the Shoreland District less than 24 inches in height.

Retaining walls that are not necessary for erosion control shall meet the structure setback requirement, except for low retaining walls and associated fill provided all of the following conditions are met:

(a) The site has been previously altered and an effective vegetated buffer does not exist;

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 11/12/2019 Page 23 of 27

(b) The wall(s) is(are) at least 25 feet horizontal distance, from the normal high-water line of a water body, tributary stream, or upland edge of a wetland;

(c) The site where the retaining wall will be constructed is legally existing lawn or is a site eroding from lack of naturally occurring vegetation, and which cannot be stabilized with vegetative plantings;

(d) The total height of wall(s), in the aggregate, are no more than 24 inches;

(e) Retaining walls are located outside of the 100-year floodplain on rivers, streams, coastal wetlands, and tributary streams, as designated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps or Flood Hazard Boundary Maps, or the flood of record, or in the absence of these, by soil types identified as recent flood plain soils.

(f) The area behind the wall is revegetated with grass, shrubs, trees, or a combination thereof, and no further structural development will occur within the setback area, including patios and decks; and

(g) A vegetated buffer area is established within 25 feet, horizontal distance, of the normal high-water line of a water body, tributary stream, or upland edge of a wetland when a natural buffer area does not exist. The buffer area must meet the following characteristics:

(1) The buffer must include shrubs and other woody and herbaceous vegetation. Where natural ground cover is lacking the area must be supplemented with leaf or bark mulch;

(2) Vegetation plantings must be in quantities sufficient to retard erosion and provide for effective infiltration of stormwater runoff;

(3) Only native species may be used to establish the buffer area;

(4) A minimum buffer width of 15 feet, horizontal distance, is required, measured perpendicularly to the normal high-water line or upland edge of a wetland;

(5) A footpath not to exceed the standards in Section 105-51.B(1)(a) may traverse the buffer.

Board members discussed presenting the adoption of allowing low retaining walls. CEO Demers felt it would be a good idea to have the Planning Board review the walls to start, and he also suggested requiring a survey to be sure the new walls are placed as required, just as with a best practical location. Steve F. felt doing the survey would be important and a good idea, so that the homeowner and the board knows exactly what is on the lot and where the property lines are. Roland L. noted that the board has seen occasions where property owners think their property line is in a certain location, when in fact it is not, once the survey is completed. He thought the surveying piece would be an appropriate addition. CEO Demers believed this would be ok legally. Roger A. agreed.

Steve F. thought this would also cleanup the plans for walls. All members agreed that some plans presented are done clearly and others are nothing more than a sketch on a napkin. Steve said it is harder on the board to try to prove something based on a napkin. Madge B. agreed. Steve felt this would be a good time to require a survey.

Roger A. noted that §105-4.7(c), all approved plans shall require confirmation in writing by a licensed surveyor that the placement of the structure is correct per the specifications approved by the Planning

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 11/12/2019 Page 24 of 27

Board. He stated this was for a relocation of a non-conforming structure, and he felt the board could apply this to these retaining walls. Roger said this would make certain these new walls were on the

property they were supposed to be on. Steve F. thought this would be a good way to clean up issues that exist.

Barbara F. asked if she should refer back to §105-4.7(c). The board members believed this would work, and if it didn’t the ordinance could be adjusted in the future.

Steve F. asked if there was a way the applicant could be informed of the requirements before they get to the meeting. Barbara F. stated that this is why they are supposed to go to the CEO prior to submitting an application, so he can review it with them. She added that the application does come to her, and she lets them know if they forgot typical material, but she is not allowed to speak for the board as to whether or not the sketch plan is adequate, only the board can state that. She added that she refers the applicants to all applicable ordinances that will be reviewed, and again suggest they speak with CEO Demers if they need any additional information on how to interpret the ordinance.

CEO Demers stated that the application also lets them know what is required. He stated that in some instances the board doesn’t know they need additional information until they review the material, because it can depend on the circumstance.

Steve F. thought the survey should be done prior to coming before the board. Madge B. thought there was an advantage to not having the survey done before they come to the board, and that is if the board said there is no way what they are asking will be approved. She hates to have them pay for a survey first. CEO Demers asked if the ordinance should say ‘may’ require. Barbara F. reminded the board that although the applicant wants this application processed in two weeks, sometimes it may take longer. She said it was not uncommon in other towns for it to take a lot longer, and if more information is required it will just mean another meeting. CEO Demers agreed, if it takes longer it does. Maggie M. agreed she didn’t want someone spending money when they are not allowed to follow through. Roger A. said he had no issue saying at the first meeting that the board was going to require a survey. He noted that in the past there were issues with boundary lines, and an applicant was not able to do the wall as depicted because of the true boundary line. Steve thought it would be nice to have the information on a plan. The board members agreed.

The board decided to add the requirement to the ordinance for low retaining walls as follows:

(h) All approved plans may require confirmation in writing by a licensed surveyor that the placement of the structure is correct per the specifications approved by the Planning Board.

The board also discussed applying this to the replacement of existing retaining walls, as they are non-conforming structures. They did note that if only the middle of a wall was being replaced, or there were existing survey markers, then a new survey may not be required.

Ann H. asked if the board was presented with photos and they have a survey, why does the board have to do a site inspection? Roger A. said the site visit is not required but it is for the board’s information and if the board sees what is actually on site, often it helps to expedite the process. Barbara F. said the pictures don’t always show everything, it depends on who took the photo and what they were trying to portray.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 11/12/2019 Page 25 of 27

Roger said the only site inspection that the board is obligated to do is with a subdivision, with other applications they are not required. Roger said he has always done a site inspection, because once on site, you know exactly what is there and what is taking place. He also felt the board can alleviate concerns of

the neighbor because the board sees all that is going on, not only on site, but in the general vicinity. Maggie M. agreed, saying that she can envision what is taking place better after seeing the location. The board agreed a site inspection was a good idea, even though it was not mandatory.

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

§105-15. Definitions

Retaining Wall – Retaining Wall is a structure that retains (holds back) any material (usually earth) and prevents it from sliding or eroding away. It is designed to resist the material pressure of the material it is holding back.

Low Retaining Wall – A low retaining wall is considered to be a wall less than 24 inches in height measured from the base of the wall to the top of the wall. The base is considered the area exposed that can be seen upon visual inspection.

Barbara F. stated that she used what she found in Webster’s Dictionary, and another site on line. After a brief discussion members agreed the wall definitions would be presented as written above.

Steve F. asked if there was no definition, was there a place in the ordinance that said if there was no definition, it would be what is written in the dictionary. Roger A. stated that is what is done, it is written somewhere. Roger said because the board is adding a new ordinance for retaining walls, there should also be a definition of what a wall is.

Ann H. asked if the last sentence ‘The base is considered the area exposed that can be seen upon visual inspection’ could be an issue? All members agreed, as well as CEO Demers that CEO Demers knew what to look for. CEO Demers believed this referred to the exposed face, not the footing. Roger A. agreed.

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

New Accessory Structure in the Shoreland District

On a non-conforming lot of record on which only a residential structure exists, and it is not possible to place an accessory structure meeting the required water body, tributary stream or wetland setbacks, the code enforcement officer may issue a permit to place a single accessory structure, with no utilities, for the storage of yard tools and similar equipment. Such accessory structure shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in area nor eight (8) feet in height, and shall be located as far from the shoreline or tributary stream as practical and shall meet all other applicable standards, including lot coverage and vegetation clearing limitations. Additionally the following apply:

1) In no case shall the structure be located closer to the shoreline or tributary stream than the principal structure.

2) At no time shall the structure be expanded.

3) The structure shall not be used for habitation.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 11/12/2019 Page 26 of 27

Barbara F. stated she added numbers 2 and 3 after the previous discussion regarding this ordinance. The board agreed to the additions. Roger A. asked CEO Demers if when he measured the 8 feet, was he looking at the structure from the ground to the top ridge. CEO Demers said that is what he would do.

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

Barbara F. asked CEO Demers if he wanted to add anything?

CEO Demers said he was still confused under §105-39.B ‘Earthmoving not requiring a conditional use permit / earthmoving activities allowed without a permit’. He read B(1) ‘The removal and filling of less than 10 cubic yards of material from or on any lot in any one year, except within the Resource Protection District, the Floodplain District or the Shoreland District. He said this means only the general purpose district was exempt from a Conditional Use Permit. He felt in this section even less than 10 cubic yards required a CUP.

Ann H. read under Section D, which in part states ‘except earthmoving of less than 10 cubic yards which shall required a permit form the CEO (except as provided above)’. CEO Demers asked if D overrides B. Roger A. agreed that anything greater than 10 cubic yards comes to the Planning Board. CEO Demers said he understood now that anything over 10 cubic yards in the Shoreland District requires a CUP.

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

Madge B. noted that SMRPC had a workshop with case laws, Barbara noted that she read them and asked her if she would review them. She stated she didn’t get to all of them but two of the cases reaffirmed that they deferred to the Planning Boards decision and it was important that the Findings of Fact and Conclusions are thoroughly documented. She pointed out one case where there was little documentation by the board, so the court remanded the case back to the Planning Board to do their job. She added at that there was also a case regarding Code Enforcement and how important documentation was. Barbara F. stated that is why she felt it was so important the board be specific in their findings.

Roger A. agreed and noted that this evening, it was why he could not approve all the walls together, even though they were all very similar. He noted some required landscaping, some did not, while not all required engineering.

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

Barbara F. stated that the Public Hearing for the ordinance changes would be held on Tuesday, December 10th at 6:00 pm. She would start posting notices now. She also noted that there could still be a change to the ordinances after the first Public Hearing but once the second hearing was held after the first of the year, whatever was agreed upon would have to be voted on.

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

Growth Permits

There are Growth Permits available.

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

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 11/12/2019 Page 27 of 27

The Planning Board meeting ended at 8:25 p.m.

NOTE: The winter hours are in effect thru March 31st, the meetings now begin at 6:30 p.m. and any scheduled public hearing begins at 6:00 p.m.

The next meeting will be held Tuesday, November 26, 2019 at 6:30 p.m.

The Planning Board meets the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month unless it falls on a holiday or Election Day. Should there be a cancellation due to a storm event, holiday or Election, the meeting will typically be held the following Wednesday, also at 7:30 p.m. Please contact the Land Use Secretary if there is a question in scheduling, 207-636-2844, x404.

Respectfully submitted,

Barbara Felong, Land Use Secretary

planningboard@shapleigh.net

The Planning Board Meetings Now Begin at 6:30 PM