| February 26, 2020 | |
|
Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes Tuesday,
January 28, 2020
Members
in attendance: Roger Allaire (Chairman), Steve Foglio (Vice Chairman), Madge
Baker, Ann Harris, and Roland Legere. Maggie Moody was unable to attend. Code
Enforcement Officer Mike Demers was also in attendance. ************************
Minutes
are not verbatim, unless in quotes “” – If the name of a citizen making a
comment was not requested by the Planning Board Chairman, the reference to
their name will be known as ‘Citizen’ or ‘Abutter’ depending on whom is
speaking.
************************
Public Hearing began at
6:00 p.m.
Citizens
attending included: William “Bill”
Mageary; Anthony & Jennifer Cappuccio
Roger
opened the public hearing stating the board was presenting modifications to the
existing Zoning Ordinance. He stated
that several of the proposed changes to the ordinance are brand new.
Roger
A. stated the first one he was going to review would be placed under §105-4,
the section on nonconforming structures. The proposed addition is to allow a new accessory structure in the
Shoreland District. The proposed
ordinance reads as follows:
New
Accessory Structure in the Shoreland District
a) 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) In
no case shall the structure be located within 10 feet of a side lot line or 25
feet from the edge of the road or right-of-way. 3) At
no time shall the structure be expanded. 4) The
structure shall not be used for habitation.
b) Section
105-35 of the ordinance does not apply when the criteria in this section are
met.
Page
1 of 13 Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – 1/28/2020 Page
2 of 13
Roger
A. stated that this would allow a shed on a property. Jennifer Cappuccio asked if it had to be
right next to your house, it can’t be closer to the shore? Roger stated, “Correct, it can’t be any
closer to the shore than what your house is now”. Tony Cappuccio asked about having a place to
store kayaks next to the water. Roger said you can’t do that now, this is a new
ordinance. He said, “Because of setback
limitations of where you can put a new shed, you can’t have one because no new
accessory structure is allowed. If townspeople approve this in March, you will
be able to have a shed.” He noted that
the new shed cannot be any closer to the water than what the residence is but
it could be on the side of the camp, provided they have enough side yard or it
can be on the road side. Jennifer
Cappuccio stated it was hard to have to pull the kayak a long way in order to
store it. Roger said they could put the
shed along the side of the camp. Ann H. stated, “You just can’t go past your
house.” Roger stated that currently new
structures have to be 100 feet back from the water but this is going to allow
an accessory structure within the 100 feet, with limitations. Jennifer Cappuccio stated that you can’t put
it on the property line. Roger agreed
that it had to be 10 feet off the property line but you could put it on the
road side if there wasn’t enough room. Jennifer asked if someone didn’t have the 25 feet to the road then they
couldn’t have it? Madge B. agreed, if
you can’t meet the setback requirements you can’t have it.
Bill
Mageary asked if a kayak stand would be considered a structure? Roger A. thought a stand would not be a
structure because it was not permanent, it can be moved. He noted that CEO Demers may have a different
opinion. Jennifer Cappuccio asked about
a structure on blocks, would that be allowed? Roger said a patio made with paving blocks, is considered a
structure. Barbara F. stated that with
any structure they need to ask CEO Demers his opinion on whether or not
something is allowed within 100 feet of the water. (CEO Demers was not present for the public
hearing.)
Roger
A. stated with this new ordinance, people who do not have an accessory
structure and currently cannot have one, this may allow them to have one. Tony Cappuccio stated that some people do
have structures currently, and he wanted to know if they are going to have to
take them out. He said this was new to
him, so he was trying to figure it out; if he had a structure and it wasn’t on
a slab, could he have one down by the water. He felt that with this conversation he would not be able to. Roger said that presently you cannot put a
new structure down by the water. Jennifer
Cappuccio asked if this would change? Roger said the current requirements stay the same but this is new and
will allow what currently isn’t allowed, as long as the criteria are met. Ann H. said they might want to ask CEO Demers
what he will allow.
Roger
A. stated that this new provision is what the DEP allows in their Chapter 1000
Shoreland Guidelines at this time. He
noted that Shapleigh didn’t adopt it originally, but now is considering
it. Jennifer Cappuccio asked, “Prior to
this could you put a shed closer to the water?” Both Roger and Ann stated, “No”. Jennifer stated that she sees so many
sheds close to the water. Roger said if
they put them in prior to 1974, when the ordinance went into effect, then they
could put one up. Roger said if a new
one is going in, the Code Enforcement Officer will have to take action on it,
because you can’t have a new one within 100 feet of the water. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Roger
A. stated the next proposed ordinance change is a new ordinance as well, and it
will also be placed under §105-4. The
proposed ordinance read as follows:
Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – 1/28/2020 Page
3 of 13
(9) Low
Retaining Walls in the Shoreland District less than 24 inches in height for
erosion control.
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; (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.
(h) All approved plans shall require
confirmation in writing by a licensed surveyor that the placement of the
structure is correct per the specifications approved by the Planning Board.
[1]
Side setbacks for structures shall not apply to low retaining walls.
Roger
A. stated that this is for a new wall for erosion. He stated that at present you can only repair
existing walls, you cannot add a new wall with 100 feet of the water. He said under Chapter 1000 there is Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – 1/28/2020 Page
4 of 13
a
provision for low retaining walls to help stabilize an area, so this will be
added for stabilization of the ground. He noted that it does have to be 25 feet from the shoreline but it will
help certain properties.
Jennifer
Cappuccio stated that she was losing 2 feet of property a year to erosion at
the water, so what happens in her case. She wanted to know how she could fix that? Roger A. stated at this time the DEP only
allows the repair of an existing wall at the water’s edge. She said, “So I just keep losing my property
every year”. It was discussed how
climate change, and boats going too fast and close to the shore are part of the
problem. Roger stated that riprap would
help stabilize the area. Bill Mageary
said this was a step in the right direction, because it does address some of
the issue with runoff going into the lake, but it does not address the erosion
at the shoreline. He said, in his
opinion it is caused by bigger boats and jet ski’s that come in too close to
the shoreline and Mousam is not a wide lake to begin with, so if they would
enforce the no wake zone it would stop much of the problem. He stated that people on the lake, who pay a
big share of the taxes, are seeing their land erode away.
Steve
F. stated that the DEP did have methods to stabilize the shoreline. Bill Mageary stated that he did go to the
DEP, prior to the lake drawdown. He said
they went into the DEP with an application and they were asked what lake they
were on. When they said ‘Mousam’ the DEP
stated they were not doing anything on Mousam. Bill stated they agreed to send someone out to look at the property, and
three months later 4 people came out. He
said that they agreed there was a problem due to the hill, and he noted that he
didn’t remove any of the trees as they were holding the soil back. Bill stated that the Permit by Rule would not
cover this but there was a form he could fill out which would allow for riprap
and other measures. Bill stated that the
form was 81 pages and he was discouraged so he said ‘forget it’. Steve stated, “A full permit”. Bill said, “Yes”. Bill added again that this was a step in the
right direction.
Roger
A. stated that the board wished at times they could do something to over-ride
the DEP, because the board has seen at times on site visits for replacing a
wall, where there was a tree with exposed roots in the way of the wall, and the
DEP won’t allow the tree to be removed. He said there were times removing tree and roots makes sense, especially
when the water is eroding it, and it will be gone eventually anyway. Jennifer Cappuccio stated that it was not
just the water but also the ice causing issues to erode it. Roger agreed. Jennifer talked about her property, how eroded it was underneath the
embankment, how she tried to place some rocks in the cavity, but she wasn’t
able to completely stabilize it and knew it would continue to erode.
Roland
L. asked the Cappuccio’s if they had been in touch with the Acton-Shapleigh
Youth Conservation Corp. to see if they would come out, he noted it was a free
service. Jennifer stated they had not. Tony Cappuccio stated they were going to do
it this year. Roland said that they
would come out, look at the situation, possibly offer a solution. He believed the labor is free, you only pay
for the materials. He said if you travel
around Mousam lake their placards are around the lake, they have done numerous projects
including carrying stone in and stuffing it under banks. He said there are areas where they brought in
large riprap to reduce erosion. He
strongly encouraged them to get in touch with them sooner rather than later, so
they can get on the list. Jennifer said
she did the best she could. Roland said
he didn’t feel they should wait to contact them. Roland said they know how to get things done,
and he didn’t think the Cappuccio’s should wait for warm weather because they
want to be on the top of the list. Jennifer asked if they could wait until fall. Roland stated, no, they only work during the
summer months. He felt they should be
proactive, get a site review, and let them tell the Cappuccio’s what they can
offer and what they suggest. Jennifer
said, “Ok”. Roland noted that Shapleigh
contributes taxpayer money to the YCC, so Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – 1/28/2020 Page
5 of 13
they
should take advantage of this service. Ann H. added that they know the DEP rules. Roland agreed and said they know what to
do. Jennifer started talking about the
25 foot buffer to the lake, how you cannot do anything in that area. Madge B. stated it did not hurt to ask Youth
Conservation before assuming what they will say or can do. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Roger
A. stated the next amendment to the Zoning Ordinance was adding two new
definitions under Section 105-15, because of adding the new ordinance for
retaining walls. The additions are as follows:
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. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Roger
A. stated under Section 105-17 Land Uses, a section for Low Retaining Walls was
added as follows: §105-17.
Land uses. RP SD GP
FD SP
Low Retaining Walls NO CU YES
NO CU ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Roger
A. stated an amendment was being made to Section 105-26 Stormwater runoff, as
follows:
§105-26
‘Stormwater runoff’.
A. Surface water runoff shall be minimized and
shall be detained on-site if possible and practicable. If it is not possible to
detain water on-site, downstream improvements to the channel may be required of
the developer to prevent flooding caused by this project. The natural state of
watercourses, swales, berms, terraces, wooded areas and floodways or
rights-of-way shall be maintained as nearly as possible. The design period is
the
Roger
stated that this change was made to make this section consistent with other
areas in the ordinance. -------------------------------------
Roger
A. asked if there were any questions? There were none.
The
public hearing on ordinance changes ended at 6:25 p.m.
************************
Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – 1/28/2020 Page
6 of 13
The minutes from Tuesday,
January 14, 2020 were approved as written.
The Planning Board
meeting started at 6:30 p.m.
************************
Thomas Cashin & Gavin
Maloney from the Town of Acton Planning Board to Discuss Wetland Mapping &
How Wetlands are Regulated in the Acton Zoning Ordinance Roger
A. stated the board would be hearing from Tom Cashin, and told Tom he was
welcome to speak. Madge B. stated that
Gavin was also here from the Acton Planning Board to speak about wetland water
protection in Acton’s ordinance and mapping.
Mr.
Cashin thanked the board for the invite and said that Madge had spoken with him
saying that the Shapleigh Planning Board might be interested in what Acton
approved years ago, regarding protecting wetlands smaller than 10 acres. He said he believed the board realized the
State of Maine wetland protection begins at 10 acres. He said when Acton did work on the
Comprehensive Plan, one of the results was Acton should be as protective of
their wetlands as possible. He said, “Because
there was a strong endorsement from the Comprehensive Plan which I believe was
in 2006, when the opportunity came along, because there was an update in the
State’s shoreland zoning, we thought it made sense while revamping the entire
ordinance to bring the town in compliance with the new Shoreland regs and
enhance what we could.” He said they
hoped they could convince the town this was a sensible option. He said what the board had this evening was
what they came up with. (Barbara F. provided board members with copies of
Section 4.2 Resource Protection District, which addresses the actual wetland
setback requirements; and Section 1.4.11.1 Expansion in Shoreland District or
Resource Protection District within the Shoreland Zone & Section 1.4.11.2
Expansion of Structures Existing Prior to September 29, 2011 in the Resource
Protection District Outside of the Shoreland Zone, both refer to wetland
setbacks.)
Mr.
Cashin stated that they came up with smaller wetland buffers, the minimum
threshold is 2 acres and they have a buffer of 50 feet. He said they simply increase the buffer by 25
feet as the wetland increases in size. He noted this could be seen on page 36 of the current Acton Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Cashin stated that what is meant by
buffer is an area that is undisturbed, or enhanced ground if it was disturbed,
that would meet or exceed the existing site conditions.
Mr.
Cashin brought a copy of Acton’s Shoreland Zoning Maps, which delineated
wetlands of 2 or more acres. He said a
majority of the wetlands mapped flow into larger streams or directly into
bodies of water that would be enhanced by the protection of the buffer. His said this was what the board was looking
at on Map 2 of 2.
Mr.
Cashin stated on map 1 of 2 it depicts other criteria of the nature of Resource
Protection and why it is designated as such. Note: The Legend on Map 1 depicts
the following under Shoreland District and Resource Protection District: Shoreland
District • Great Pond and River – 250 ft.
Buffer • Stream – 75 ft. Buffer
Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – 1/28/2020 Page
7 of 13
Resource Protection District • Slopes 20% or greater, 2 or more
acres • Wetlands (2 or more acres) • Wetland Buffer (see Map 2 for
buffer distance) • Inland Waterfowl and Wading Bird
Habitat • FEMA 100- Year Floodplain
Mr.
Cashin said there was a small area of RP that is in the Shoreland Zone. He said
while walking with Madge B. for Three Rivers Land Trust, so far they haven’t
come across areas of steep slope that are actually in the Shoreland District. He said the State has language to describe
the steep slopes. Mr. Maloney said that initially they wanted any areas with a
steep slope greater than 20 % and 2 acres in size but it turned out a
substantial amount of that area was already developed. Mr. Maloney read from Acton’s ordinance
Section 4.2.1, ‘Those areas shall not be included within the Resource
Protection District. (Developed is defined as more than one principal structure
per five hundred (500) feet of shore frontage for more than one thousand
(1,000) feet.)’ He said instead of encompassing over 200 camps that are on
these steep slopes, we made it the areas of 20% steep slopes in areas that are
undeveloped. He said there was
approximately five miles of shoreline on Great East Lake, but it is considered
developed, so it was not included in the Resource Protection District.
Mr.
Cashin said they broke it down further, another layer on the map, designating
the standards for Resource Protection within the Shoreland Zone, and protection
for areas outside the Shoreland Zone. He
said it was less stringent for people who owned property in Resource Protection
prior to the implementation of the new standards, so they tried to give a break
to people who were directly impacted by the adoption of the new smaller than 10
acre wetlands. He said the landowners
that had lands that would be in the new RP designation had the opportunity not
to lose the right for some development on the parcel, noting there are a couple
of conditions. He asked Mr. Maloney to run down the conditions, which are
located under Section 1.4.11.2 ‘Expansion of Structures Existing Prior to
September 29, 2011 in the Resource Protection District Outside of the Shoreland
Zone’. Mr. Maloney said this was similar to the Best Practical Location and he
noted that Shapleigh must do a BPL. Roger A. said that they did. Gavin said this section was similar to that.
Mr.
Maloney said that initially if someone wanted to put an overhang on their house
they were not allowed to because it was considered an expansion, so they
revamped the ordinance. He said if the
board read (a) thru (d) of Section 1.4.11.2, it was pretty straight
forward. He said under (b) the structure
cannot be expanded by more than 30 percent of the structure for the lifetime of
the structure, this was started in September 2011 and it is both floor area and
volume. He said under (c) whenever a
new, enlarged or replacement foundation is constructed under a non-conforming
structure the structure must be placed to the greatest practical extent. He noted that the DEP now considers sono
tubes a foundation. He said they felt this section made sense for those who
were being affected by the new overlay on the map.
Mr.
Cashin said they didn’t want to regulate the areas out of utility, so they
maintain the right to develop what they could, so they used as a model the 30%
expansion, a roadmap that was already in the ordinance. He said as far as he and Mr. Maloney were
aware, this seemed to work well. He said
Ken Paul runs a tight ship and they haven’t heard of any pushback. Mr. Maloney said there were not nearly as
many structures that would be within a 100 feet of a swamp, as compared to the
lakes, so there were not as many people affected. Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – 1/28/2020 Page
8 of 13
Steve
F. asked what criteria they used or who did the map as far as delineating the
wetland? Mr. Maloney said there was a
national wetlands inventory. Mr. Cashin
said it was done a while ago. He said
they got updated information from Southern Maine Regional, Jamie Saltmarsh, was
finishing her career there and spent a lot of time working with the Acton
Planning Board. He said she worked to
make it palatable for people who had some hesitation. He said instead of using the word protection,
they used the word safeguards.
Mr.
Cashin said again CEO Ken Paul has not indicated any major issues. He said if the self-interest was maintaining
property values around the lake, they did homework of attending Lake
Association meetings and touched based with every constituency in the town they
could, prior to bringing it to town meeting; they wanted it to be accepted and it was proven to be the case. Mr. Cashin said that it intuitively made
sense to have discussion, to have people say it was a good idea.
Madge
B. asked if there had been much building around the wetlands? Mr. Cashin stated there had not, due to the
nature of wetlands, such as black flies and mosquitos. He said they were strong allies.
Steve
F. asked if there was any control over logging with this overlay? Mr. Cashin said, no, they had a logging
consultant to make sure they were not trampling on a misunderstanding of Maine
Forestry regulations and they supersede in terms of buffers. He said the forestry regs are the same as the
State of Maine. Roger A. asked if they
joined the Forestry collective where they got the 278 towns to opt in. Mr. Maloney said Acton was still in the
process of changing their ordinance, noting they would go with State verbiage
but they still needed to remove verbiage to be in full compliance. Roger A. asked if Acton was controlling
timber harvesting? Mr. Maloney said, no,
but the State isn’t helping them because there are things in the ordinance that
need to be removed to be in full compliance, so then they will receive State
input. He said it is a slow process, each town meeting they try to remove more
language. Ann H. asked what Shapleigh had for forestry? Roger stated that Shapleigh didn’t have
anything in the ordinance to regulate timber harvesting, they voted to leave it
up to the State.
Mr.
Maloney said the State didn’t care about these smaller resources that Acton has
protected, he said the State allows people to log within the buffer areas. Mr. Cashin felt that if they had tried to
create buffers for logging it would have been a hornet’s nest. Roger A. agreed, saying it was why they left
the regulation up to the State. Mr.
Cashin believed Acton was the same, leaving it up to the State.
Mr.
Cashin said that something that wasn’t on the maps, because they could not get
support for it, was protection of 1st order streams. He said the State’s protection of 75 feet of
a buffer guard is for 2nd order streams. He said they had a map that delineated 1st
order streams but they found it was not something they could develop support
for at this time, therefore, the 75 foot protection is for 2nd order
streams. Mr. Maloney said 2nd
order streams are delineated in purple on the map and he said 1st
order streams are on the map. He said
there are over 24 1st order streams that flow directly into a great
pond, not into another stream. Madge B.
asked, “What’s a 1st order stream”? Mr. Maloney said the definition
is, in order to become a stream it has to have a water shed of 300 acres but
the State still doesn’t recognize it until it becomes a 2nd order
stream. He noted that this was Shoreland District, not Resource Protection
District. He said they would like to
protect 1st order streams but in town some people have already sited
houses next to these streams, so we didn’t quite get there. He believed it was
a good idea, noting the work he and Mr. Cashin did counting all the streams
that flow directly into a pond. Madge
wanted to know what kind of buffer they wanted to add to a 1st order
stream? Mr. Cashin said, “No development
and undisturbed Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – 1/28/2020 Page
9 of 13
ground,
or enhance the ground for better absorption.” Madge asked what the distance would be? Mr. Cashin said, “75 feet.” Mr. Maloney said they could do less than
that. Roger A. said that as long as it
was a defined stream, as long as there is a gravel base, the buffer was 75 feet
in Shapleigh. Mr. Maloney said, “So if
there is a defined stream channel, even if it isn’t flowing year round, the
channel is still apparent with rocks and ferns and vegetation”. Roger said, “Yes, it is protected.”
Mr.
Cashin asked if when the board presented it to voters, did they call it a first
order stream? Roger said, “No, the board
said ‘all’ streams in resource protection, that constitute a stream definition,
so they have to have a gravel base, were protected, period. There is no ifs,
ands or buts.” Mr. Cashin said that was good. He said it would be something
they might try. Madge B. said it might
work if you don’t get too specific. Roger
said they didn’t want to differentiate between streams, instead they would use
the definition of a stream bed. He said
anything going into a great lake is protected. Mr. Maloney said, “You would almost think that some of these streams
that flow directly into a great pond would be considered part of the great
pond”. Madge agreed. Mr. Maloney said they should deserve a
buffer. Roger said Shapleigh adopted most of the State language. Mr. Cashin said DEP, Mike Morse, was a strong
supporter of what they presented. He
said he was not sure Mike was still at the DEP. Madge said that sadly he is not.
Madge
B. asked if they have any phosphorus runoff controls? Mr. Cashin said that they
did not, they had work done addressing this years ago but it did not go well,
so they put it on the shelf. He said some people felt what they were going to
do was more complex than it needed to be, and they didn’t think it would be
accepted at town meeting. Madge said she
wasn’t advocating for it, because if you keep good buffers then there is no
need for it.
Mr.
Cashin stated that when proposing changes to the ordinance they take into
consideration the fact that roughly 60% of the tax revenue is generated by
properties on the water. Madge B. stated
it was the same for Shapleigh. He said
at one time it was as high as 75%. Mr.
Maloney stated that they do require phosphorus control plans for larger
developments. Mr. Maloney said one issue
is people hire someone to put fertilizer on their lawn and they put the same
thing down no matter what town they are in. He felt if people kept a more natural environment around their camp it
would be beneficial. He didn’t feel
grass was best. Roger A. agreed and
although Shapleigh doesn’t allow fertilizer in the Shoreland District, you
can’t monitor it. He said unless someone complains, the town has no idea, and
even if a neighbor complains by the time the CEO goes down to look at it there
is no evidence. Roger said the town doesn’t say no ‘phosphorus’, the town just
says no ‘fertilizer’, but again he noted there was really no way to monitor or
enforce it. Mr. Maloney asked if
Shapleigh did anything with pesticides in the Shoreland Zone? Roger stated, “No”.
Mr.
Maloney stated that anything the board thinks is unenforceable the board tries
to take it out of the ordinance, which he did not feel is always
beneficial. He felt some people will
comply because it is the right thing to do, so the town still gets benefit from
the regulation. Madge B. agreed.
Mr.
Cashin felt the biggest difference between the two town’s ordinances was the
use of the 10 acres standard for defining wetlands. Madge B. did not believe Shapleigh addressed
wetlands less than 10 acres in size. Mr.
Cashin said if the town decides to work on this or anything related to it, he
would like it if the town would keep Acton’s board in mind and share thoughts
on it and how it will be proposed at town meeting. Madge said the reason this came up was
because they were talking about this at a meeting because the Land Trust is
interested in protecting wetlands and Steve F. raised the fact that Acton has Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – 1/28/2020 Page
10 of 13
been
proactive in protecting them. She said
from his comment she felt she would like to hear more about it. Steve F. said he believed it had a lot to do
with what the Town of Acton has decided to spend on their map. He said it does
delineate to some extent wetlands in the town. The board pointed out Shapleigh’s zoning map on the wall and compared it
to what Acton has, which depicts in greater detail water bodies, including
wetlands of significance down to 2 acres in size.
Mr.
Cashin said Southern Maine Regional is still doing this type of work, and he
could provide a copy of Acton’s map if the board thought it would be
useful. He said he asked Paul Schumacher
from SMR if they still had the map on file and they do at this time. (Southern Maine Regional is now known as
Southern Maine Planning and Development Commission.) Mr. Cashin stated that
Acton has used their help with subdivisions in the past as well. He said he recently spoke with Mr. Schumacher
and he noted that due to distance and time, it may be more difficult to get
someone to come to the town. Ann H.
asked if Mr. Cashin knew how much it cost to get a map such as what Acton has
done? Mr. Cashin was not sure. Steve F.
said being able to have the map in digital form would be helpful to himself,
the landowner, and the CEO.
Mr.
Cashin stated that their CEO Ken Paul used to be in partnership with Shapleigh’s
prior CEO (Steven McDonough) and they worked together on many of the same
issues for the towns; they worked through the issues in depth, this worked well. Mr. Cashin stated with respect to who would
do this type of in depth work now, he didn’t know.
Mr.
Maloney stated that CEO Ken Paul and Mr. Cashin went to many of the sites
themselves to gain credibility. He said
they didn’t check every wetland noted on the map but they went to many of them
to make sure the wetland was where it says it was on the map, or is it close to
what is depicted. He said there was two
years spent to be certain that the overlays were correct. He said they also used a topo map, and
wetlands that were not draining into anything else were removed from the
mapping because they were just considered a swamp. He said there was quite a process to complete
the map and make it accurate.
Mr.
Cashin said doing the legwork also made the map more palatable, noting that
developers would go into CEO Paul’s office wanting to know about the wetland
delineation on the map and because of rigorous site visits the map gained
credibility, as what was on the map was seen on site. He said it was also tested by applicants
saying they wanted to do something on site and there was no wetland, and if
this was the case, there was a correction made. Mr. Cashin said CEO Paul had the ability to zoom in to a partial lot and
see exactly what is on that lot. Madge
B. stated that was what Shapleigh needed. Mr. Cashin said this immediately can answer any questions. He said CEO Paul can find the acreage of a
body of water to answer questions as well. He noted this cuts down on field work and shows what the applicant may or
may not be able to do. He said if there
is still controversy they suggest they hire a surveyor. CEO Demers asked if the Town of Acton found
that the GIS layers closely resemble what they found on the ground. Mr. Maloney stated that the maps were generated
by the GIS, then they did the ground work. Mr. Cashin said the GIS is always combined with a site visit, to provide
a standard evaluation. Mr. Maloney
stated that the site work helped to delineate the actual boundaries vs what
appeared to be the case using the GIS. He said because there was site work, not many people objected to the
maps, because someone had been to the site to find the actual boundaries of the
wetland.
Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – 1/28/2020 Page
11 of 13
Mr.
Cashin asked if there were any questions and if the board wanted to look at the
maps. Mr. Maloney thought it might be
helpful for the board to look at the maps further. He said they have it all on a computer so
they didn’t have to have the maps at present.
Mr.
Maloney stated that if the Town of Shapleigh looked at the GIS map, they would
have an idea of how many 2 acre, 5 acre or larger wetland areas you have and
then you could see how big an undertaking it would be to do the site work
involved. He felt Shapleigh was similar
to Acton.
The
board thanked Mr. Cashin and Mr. Maloney for their time, it was very
informative.
Nothing
further was discussed.
------------------------------------
Other:
Madge
B. had a question for CEO Demers. She
said she walked Cedar Drive a lot and there was either a lot or two lots on
what she believes is called Conifer Lane and she recently noted there were no
trees on this lot or lot(s). She said
she took a picture and she had with her on her computer, as she didn’t have a
printer to print them off. Again she
said, “There are no trees”.
Steve
F. asked if it was on the peninsula? Madge B. said it wasn’t. Steve
asked if it was where the microburst came through four or five years ago? Madge did not believe so.
Madge
B. said she didn’t understand how you could clear a lot? She said perhaps you can, she didn’t enforce
the ordinance. Steve F. said again that
perhaps she was near the microburst. Madge said, “No, these were just cut! Fresh cut.” CEO Demers said he would look into it.
Madge
B. asked if a person can do that? Ann H.
said, “People can do anything, it doesn’t mean that they are supposed to.” CEO Demers said, “No they cannot do
that”. Madge said there was some
building going on on site. Madge showed
CEO Demers the area she was speaking about. She said there was a garage, a shed and she pointed out the area that
has been cut. CEO Demers said, “He does
have a building permit for a garage, he is beyond the 100 foot setback and he’s
prepping the area apparently”. Madge
said again, “But there are no trees”. She said there were trees there. She said she was not saying she knew what was right or wrong, but she
said you walk along Cedar Drive and there are trees everywhere on all the lots,
and then you get to these two lots; she wasn’t sure if it was one or two lots
but there are two dwelling units, and there are no trees. CEO Demers said he wasn’t sure if there were
two lots if it is where he is thinking. He said if there were two camps side by
side, then he believed they were two lots that didn’t meet the dimensional
requirement and the camps are close. Madge agreed. She said there are
no trees all the way to the water. She
said she understood you can clear to put a septic system and leachfield in but
asked if it was normal to remove all the trees? She said there isn’t another lot in the area that looks like this, and
she noted the trees were just cut.
Ann
H. wondered about where the 100 foot mark was. Madge B. said she didn’t know but she also wondered about the lots lot
coverage because there are two buildings. CEO Demers asked for further explanation. Madge said there are two camps, and then the
new structure with the trees all gone. She Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – 1/28/2020 Page
12 of 13
said,
“You say it is one lot with two dwellings on it”. CEO Demers said, “I didn’t say that. There is one camp, the one that Levesque
bought and then there is an area that meets the 100 foot setback that he is
clearing for a garage. That is one lot but it is narrow. So the percentage of lot, they meet the lot
requirements because of the length of the lot.”
Madge
B. said, “So the other lots meets the lots coverage too?” CEO Demers said that he wasn’t aware of
another building permit in that area. Madge said there was a fairly new garage right next door. Madge said
she was not saying there was anything wrong but she asked if they understood
why she was asking? Ann H. said, “Yes
because you walked near the water and there are no trees”.
Madge
B. said there are two dwellings, on two separate properties, she asked if the
adjacent lot had too much lot coverage? CEO Demers said there hasn’t been a new permit pulled for that
property. Madge said, “Ok, it’s just
this lot”. Ann H. asked what the address
was? Madge thought it was Conifer Lane,
where there is none. Madge said in the
ordinance is it true you can clear cut 250 by 250? Roger A. stated beyond 250 from the water you
can but closer you need a permit. Madge read from the ordinance, “there shall
be no cleared openings greater than 250 square feet in the canopy from the
outer limits of the tree or shrub crown, however a single foot path…” Madge was not sure this pertained.
Ann
H. pulled up the lot on her telephone. Ann said it was 65 feet at the water and 60 feet on the road and 290
feet in depth. Ann said the adjacent
property was 50 feet on the water and 50 on the road. Ann said if it was halfway, maybe it was out
of the Shoreland. Madge thought the camp
was about 50 feet from the water. Ann
thought if they cleared the rear of the property, they were beyond the 100 foot
mark. Roger said there was a point
system up to 250 feet.
Madge
B. said the board is trying to keep trees down by the water, but it seems there
is nothing the board can do about it. Roger A. said there was enforcement. He said they would have to replace with 6 foot trees. Madge said Ann thought they were back 100
feet, so they don’t have to do anything. CEO Demers stated that was incorrect, it was still Shoreland zoning up
to 250 away from the water, so they will have to have a replanting schedule.
Madge said, “Ok”. CEO Demers said the
garage will get built, and the replanting schedule will be put into place using
the point system.
Madge
B. said this property looks so different from the rest of the area. Roland L. was concerned with runoff. Madge stated that they had a silt fence
up. Roland said that picks up large
particulates, but not small silt. Roland
noted that he would be taking a ride to the area tomorrow to look at it.
Nothing
further was discussed. *************************
Growth Permits There
are Growth Permits available.
*************************
The Planning Board meeting ended at 7:50
p.m.
Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – 1/28/2020 Page
13 of 13
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
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.
The next meeting will be held on
Tuesday, February 11, 2020.
Respectfully
submitted, Barbara
Felong, Land Use Secretary
|
Planning Board
July 10, 2020 4:02 PM