| March 11, 2020 | |
|
Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes Tuesday,
February 25, 2020
Members
in attendance: Roger Allaire (Chairman), Steve Foglio (Vice Chairman), Madge
Baker, Ann Harris, Maggie Moody and Roland Legere. 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, January 28,
2020 were accepted as read.
The Planning Board meeting started at
6:30 p.m.
*************************
Conditional Use Permit –
Barber Shop – Map 18, Lot 32 (112 Emery Mills Road) – Rhonda Burnell,
Applicant; Paul & Bob Muse, Property Owners Rhonda
Burnell and Lisa Clarke were present for the review of the application, along
with Paul Muse.
Presented
along with the application was a sketch depicting the size of the lot, the size
of the existing structure that being 26’ x 40’ and its proximity to the lot
lines, the location of the leachfield and septic system, well, the location of
the existing signage and Route 109. Also
provided, was a sketch entitled ‘Parking Plan’ which depicted the existing
structure, and parking area layout both beside and behind the structure. The plan noted that there was a total of 15 -
10’ x 20’ parking spaces on site.
The
detailed description of the project is as follows: Barber Shop: 4 (possibly 5) booths. Cutting
and styling hair. Open 7 days, 7:00 am thru 8 pm. Currently 3 Barbers (2 full
time & 1 part time – 16 hours/week).
Roger
A. asked Ms. Burnell to let the board what she wanted to do. Ms. Burnell introduced Lisa Clarke and stated
that they currently work together at 4 Seasons Barber Shop in Springvale which
was being sold, therefore, they want to relocate their business to Emery
Mills. She said most of their business
would follow them, and in addition, they expect business from the residents on
the lake. She stated they were well established and quiet.
Roger
A. stated that the application read 7 days a week, 7 am to 8 pm. Ms. Burnell said this window would take in
hair emergencies, and special occasions. She said that typically they would be there Wednesday to Saturday, and
Tuesday thru Saturday in the summer. Roger said the board likes the applicant
to keep the window of time open for as long as possible taking into
consideration times they may be there longer than expected. Ms. Burnell stated she was told this, which
is why she put down 7 days a week, 7 am to 8 pm. She did not expect to need hours longer than
that. Page
1 of 10 Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – February 25, 2020 Page
2 of 10
Ms.
Burnell stated they were thinking about adding several beautician stations in
the back room and those would be by appointment. She said she did not expect either her or Ms.
Clarke to work 8 hours a day.
Madge
B. thought they were in a good location, because sometimes with a business if
you work late or early, in the winter the vehicle headlights can be a bother to
a neighboring residence, but in this case that will not be an issue.
Roger
A. asked if there were any additional questions? Madge B. asked how many parking places they
needed? Looking at the parking plan, it
appeared the parking spaces exceeded the amount required. (7 spaces are
required for the square footage of the service establishment, plus 2 for the
dwelling unit. The parking plan depicts
a total of 15 spaces.)
Madge
B. asked if there would be any additional lighting? She stated that the issue with lighting is to
make certain there is no glare going out onto the street. Ms. Burnell stated that there would be no
changes to the existing lighting. Ms.
Clarke asked if they would be able to put up a lighted barber pole right
outside of the entry door for the hours they were open? She
said that the lighting that is there is in existence. Madge said she was just trying to be careful
that the businesses are not throwing light out onto the street. Mr. Muse stated that there was a light on the
east and west side of the building, but there would be no additional lighting.
Ms. Clarke stated again that the only additional lighting they wanted to add is
the barber pole and it would be on during business hours. The board had no
issue with the barber pole.
Madge
B. asked if they were going to do a site visit? Roger A. said he didn’t believe he had to see it again, as he had
already been there several times for other permits. Ms. Burnell said there were no structural
changes being made, other than moving a counter top and adding a shampoo
bowl.
Madge
B. asked about the septic system. Roger
A. stated that would be up to CEO Demers to make sure it is adequate. Roger said there will be no structural
changes. Ms. Burnell agreed saying that
the wall will stay the same, just the counter will come down. Ms. Clarke said, “Counter top”.
Roger
A. stated that he wanted to ask Mr. Muse if his office will be gone when they take
over? Mr. Muse stated that was
correct. Roger stated, with the
ordinance we only allow one residence and one business on a two acre
parcel. He said that was why he was
bringing it up. Mr. Muse said his sign
would be coming down and theirs would be going up.
Roger A. stated the board
would notify abutters and a public hearing would be held on Tuesday, March 10th
at 6:00 p.m. After that, the application
will be taken up at the regular meeting.
Roger
A. asked if anyone wanted to do a site inspection? The members were aware of the location and
felt they did not need a formal site inspection.
Nothing
further was discussed. ------------------------------------
Minor 4-Lot Subdivision –
Name ‘Shapleigh Heights’ – Map 8, Lot 61 (Gulf Road) – North Country Land /
Robert Libby, Property Owner; James Logan, Representing Mr.
Logan was present for the review of the application. Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – February 25, 2020 Page
3 of 10
The preliminary
application for the 3 lot subdivision contained the following information: Name of Property Owner: North Country Land, c/o Robert Libby, RW Libby
& Sons, 483 Old Meetinghouse
Road, Porter, Maine 04068 Name of Authorized
Agent: James Logan, Longview Partners,
LLC, 6 Second Street, Buxton, Maine 04093 Name of Land
Surveyor: Isaiah Plante, PLS, Kimball
Survey & Design, Inc., 30 Frost Hill Road, York, Maine 03909 Land Information: Location of Property:
YCRD Book 17858, Page 716 Shapleigh
Tax Map 8, Lot 61 Current Zoning: General Purpose No part of the property lies within 250 of the high-water mark of a pond
or river. Acreage to be Developed: 65±
Acres Property is not part of a
prior subdivision. There have been no divisions within 5 years. Restrictive Covenants: No Mobile Homes Allowed Existing Use: Wood
Lot Selectively Cut The parcel does not include a
waterbody. The parcel is not within a
special flood hazard area. Proposed Name of Development: Shapleigh Heights Number of Lots: (4) Four Date of Construction: Spring 2020 (no internal road) Date of Completion: TBD, as lots sell. Infrastructure Required: No The property currently has road
access on Gulf Road. Method of Water Supply: Individual Wells Method of Sewer Disposal: Individual Septic Systems Method of Fire Protection: Sprinklers in home.
There are no Proposed: Streets Recreation Areas Common Land Requested Waiver(s): To be
submitted with final plan.
Also provided with the application was a
Preliminary plan of the proposed four lot division. Total
Area Containing All Lots per the Surveyed Plan = 67.67 Acres; Proposed Lot
Areas are as follows: Lot #1 = 6.02
Acres with 410.74 feet of road frontage; Lot #2 – 6.00 Acres with 410 feet of
road frontage; Lot #3 – 6 Acres with 410 feet of road frontage and Lot #4 has
49.65 acres with 533.25 feet of road frontage. Also on the plan are a total of 10 Test Pits; TP 1 & 2 on Lot #1, TP 3 &
4 on Lot #2, TP 5 & 6 on Lot #3 and TP 7 thru 10 on Lot 4. Gulf Road is depicted as having a 50’ wide
public easement. The contours on the map are based on NAVD88 Datum and list
elevation changes every 2 feet. Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – February 25, 2020 Page
4 of 10
In addition, provided by the applicant is an ‘Authorization to Act
as Agent’ signed by Robert Libby stating Mr. Logan can represent him before the
Planning Board and to obtain municipal permits from the Town of Shapleigh; a
deed description of the property, referencing the recorded deed located at the
YCRD in Book 17858, Page 716 (a copy of the actual conveyance was obtained by
the Planning Board from YCRD); the soils reports for each of the test pit done
by John Logan, SE #237-CCS #213 dated 8/22/19 & 9/5/19; a copy of the USGS
depicting the site location on the map; a copy of the Soil Map for the area and
description of the soils noted, which appear to be LnB (Lyman loam, 3 to 8
percent slopes, rocky), LyB (Lyman – Rock outcrop complex, 3 to 8 percent
slopes) & SrC (Skerry fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, very stony).
Roger
A. stated that Mr. Logan was free to discuss the subdivision application. Mr. Logan began by stating he would not be
able to attend the meeting on March 10th, so he will be placed on
the agenda for March 24th.
Mr.
Logan wanted to thank the board for the work they do, noting that he had been
on the planning board in Buxton, and he understood it took a lot of effort to
do the towns business on a regular basis.
Mr.
Logan stated that he was a wetland scientist, soil scientist, site evaluator
and septic designer. He said in the past he worked on the subdivision on White
Tail Lane for Mr. Libby while at Frick Associates. He said now he works under Longview
Partners. He noted he previously spoke
with the Chairman of the Board about their plans and he was told that if they
created greater than 4 lots it would require an internal road. He wanted to add that he felt this was
counter-intuitive when it came to certain properties. He believed there are certain properties that
are unique and he felt there possibly should be the ability to waive the
requirement. He didn’t feel in this
instance, putting in a paved road that came out onto a dirt road made
sense. He added that he is always trying
to keep impervious surfaces to a minimum, to keep runoff to a minimum, so if
there was the requirement for paving and bonding, he didn’t feel it was always
necessary.
Mr.
Logan said his client did not want to put the money into a road. He realized at some point someone may want to
buy the 50 acres and put in a road but at present they did not want to do it. He said the plan he presented this evening
was from the surveyor and it contained no protective notes but they can be
added, such as any further divisions must come back to the planning board. He
said any required notes will be added to the final plan.
Mr.
Logan said there are three 6 acre lots, and the remaining land. He said they started with 10 lots that would
be fully complying, but they didn’t have an internal road. The three lots depicted were six lots at one
time, so if there is a desire to split them in the future, with Planning Board
approval, he wasn’t sure how it would be accomplished regarding the road. He thought perhaps the road would prohibit
them from being split?
Mr.
Logan stated that the area was logged off by Mr. Libby and now there were some
great views. He believed the land still had some trees and the lots were nice,
because Mr. Libby was both in the business as a logger, as well as land
developer, so it is in his best interest to be mindful how the lots look once
he is done logging. He said based on
this, there is no clear cutting and there are trees. He also noted the deer population is
flourishing on site.
Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – February 25, 2020 Page
5 of 10
Mr.
Logan said he provided the soils information that lists lots of Lyman soil
which is shallow, and there are some shallow areas, but where he dug he was
able to go six feet down without issue. He said there are a lot of places for full basements and a septic. He stated that he has two test pits on each
of the three 6 acre lots and there was no issue in each location.
Mr.
Logan said each lot has frontage on Gulf Road, so each lot would have its own
driveway onto Gulf Road. He said there
shouldn’t be a problem because there isn’t much traffic on the road. Madge B. agreed.
Mr.
Logan stated with respect to waivers he would like to waive the stone
monuments, as he felt the iron rod with a cap was sufficient. Madge B. agreed and stated that was what the
board was used to waiving. He said the
other waiver was for a performance bond for the completion of the subdivision, because
the completion of the subdivision was the plan provided, there is no
infrastructure being built. Madge
agreed. Mr. Logan said there would be no
roads, and for fire suppression they are going to use sprinklers instead of a
pond or cistern. He said with fire suppression
tanks there are issues with easements, and the ability to hold water; dry
hydrants can silt in; so he felt sprinklers there would be acceptable by the
Fire Chief and easier for the town.
Mr.
Logan said that he has already submitted all the fees required for both
preliminary and final.
Roger
A. said other waivers he might want to consider are for sidewalks and
underground utilities. Mr. Logan felt in
areas like this it was easy to get those waivers. The board agreed but it is in the ordinance,
so it needs to be waived. Madge B. said
the board will have to vote on each waiver, so he will need to list them all. Ann H. reminded him that he wanted to waive
stone monuments. Ann asked if he was going to go underground with power? Mr. Logan said they were going to leave it up
to the buyers. CEO Demers said that he
should ask for a waiver for underground, so they can use overhead lines if they
want to. Roger agreed and said they
still could do underground but they would not have to. Roger also noted that Lot #2 has a pole
across the street, so it is likely some of the lots may need a pole put
in.
Roger
A. stated that the board will need something stating that stormwater runoff
will not be an issue coming off any of the lots. Madge B. read the standard which states in
part ‘Adequate provision shall be made for disposal of all stormwater generated
within the subdivision’ §89-38 ‘Stormwater management design standards’. Mr. Logan believed this pertained to a road
and not to an individual lot or driveway. Roger said the board looks at the lots. He said when the lots are cleared for the septic and house, there could
be erosion going toward the road or neighboring lots, the board wants to know
how this will be addressed. Mr. Logan
felt erosion was different than stormwater. He said erosion was something that you don’t want to move off the lot. Roger said the board looks at both. Mr. Logan said he works with an engineer and
it is pretty regular to say that a small residential development in addition to
the large lot, will make an imperceptible change to stormwater runoff due to
the addition of the houses. In terms of
erosion and sediment control, because there is no road, typically they would
not provide that for each house. Roger
said it was for the whole subdivision. Mr. Logan asked if he could do a typical erosion and sediment control
plan that would go around a house, a conceptual plan, to make someone who buys
a lot aware that they should put erosion and sediment control around their
house. He said he would put in a typical
plan for a silt fence or stump grindings. CEO Demers said it had been awhile since he had been up there but he
believed it was sloping away from the road. Mr. Logan agreed, it all sloped away from the
Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – February 25, 2020 Page
6 of 10
road. He did not see a way that erosion would end
up on the road. Roger said it was a
provision and it did need to be addressed.
Madge
B. said again that the abutters could be affected, so it made sense to address
it. Mr. Logan agreed and it would give the CEO something to point to. Roger said the board had to review both
§89-38 ‘Stormwater management design standards’ and §89-39 ‘Storm drainage
construction standards’.
Roger
A. asked about the USGS. Mr. Logan said a map was in the package he provided. He said on this map there were 20 foot
contour intervals, but on the plan provided they were 2 foot intervals which
was why there were so many lines. He
said there were small areas of steeps slopes but they are limited. He said they are primarily on the large
lot. He said they didn’t count enough to
deduct from the lot, they were very small inclusions. He said there were plenty of places to put
drilled wells. Roger said no dug wells
were allowed in subdivisions.
Roger
A. said another note on the plan would be no further division without Planning
Board approval. Ann H. asked if he
needed to waive a bond? Roger A. said,
no, there was not going to be any infrastructure created, so a bond was not
required. Ann wanted to know if it had
to be documented that it was waived? Roger said it did not. Madge B.
agreed, there was no road going in or any other infrastructure other than the
individual houses.
Roger
A. said the only other question was the width of the Gulf Road. Mr. Logan said
the width of the right-of-way is 50 feet. He did not know the width of the
actual road but the ROW is on the plan. Roger said, ok.
Roger
A. asked if there were any other questions? There were none. Madge B. stated
that she assumed after the board sees the property, they would have an
opportunity to ask questions. Mr. Logan
thought after the site visit would be a good time to ask more questions, and after
the public hearing.
Mr.
Logan asked if the board wanted to do a site visit before the next
meeting? Mr. Logan said you could see a
lot by driving by. The board decided to
go on their own on an individual basis. Mr. Logan said there was a pink flag at the corner of Gulf and Ross
Corner Road. Steve F. said you will know
where the property is because there is a nice view. Mr. Logan agreed. Ann H. asked if there was any water on the
property like a stream? Mr. Logan stated
there was not, or he would have put it on the plan. Roger A. asked if there were any pins? Mr.
Logan said there were not but there is a cemetery on the far corner of the
lot.
Roger A. stated the
public hearing will be set for Tuesday, March 24th and a notice to
abutters will be mailed as well. Members
will do a site inspection on an individual basis.
Nothing
more was discussed. -----------------------------------
Other:
CEO
Demers had several issues he wanted to discuss.
Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – February 25, 2020 Page
7 of 10
CEO
Demers stated that Mr. Muse was looking for guidance from the board with
respect to the existing structure he owns which currently houses Keepin it
Local, which will be moving to its permitted new location. Mr. Muse was in the audience. CEO Demers stated that Mr. Muse asked if he
could have two efficiency apartments in the structure but he wasn’t sure how to
answer the question. He said he knew it
would be a Planning Board issue because it was a non-conforming lot,
non-conforming structure, and change of use.
CEO
Demers stated the lot was not 80,000 sf, and it did not have the required
frontage on the road. Mr. Muse asked
what the required frontage was? Roger A.
stated, “200 feet”. Mr. Muse believed he
did have the 200 feet of frontage.
Roger
A. stated that a duplex would require 200 feet of road frontage and a 2 acre
lot. Mr. Muse stated that it could not
meet the 2 acres. Mr. Muse asked if he
could have a business, and an efficiency apartment. Madge B. thought he could change it to a
residence or have one business but she didn’t think he could have both because
he didn’t’ have the two acres required. CEO Demers said it was an existing lot of record, so he could have a
residence. Roger A. agreed that he could
have one or the other, but not both.
Steve
F. asked why he could have both next door, an apartment and a business. Roger A. stated, “Because it was
grandfathered, he can have both, as long as he doesn’t discontinue a use”. Maggie M. thought the building in question at
one time had two businesses in it. CEO
Demers stated that it had been more than a year since there were two
businesses. Roger and Madge B. agreed,
once discontinued you lose the grandfathered status.
Mr.
Muse asked how the town viewed Airbnb’s? Roger A. said the town doesn’t look at it. He said it has come up before, if a person
wants to rent a house for a year or for a night, the board looks at it as a
dwelling. Madge B. said the board used
to think the owners live in them, but she was aware now that may not be
so. Madge said she thought there should
be a definition in the ordinance.
Mr.
Muse asked about shared space? He listed
as an example if there was a common secretary, and separate offices. Real estate was given as an example. Steve F. said real estate, insurance, that
would have several spaces in one building. CEO Demers stated that the use would be called office space and the
rooms could be sublet. Ann H. asked
about signage? CEO Demers stated that as
long as the sign was 32 square feet then it wouldn’t be an issue. Roger A. said that the board would look at
each individual business as being on its own, so it becomes a strip mall. CEO Demers said, “Then this building could
only house one business”. Steve F. asked
if One Earth was a strip mall? Barbara
F. did not believe so, as there were multiple businesses approved at that
location. Roger agreed. Steve said there was a store, massage
business, apartment, yoga studio and brew shop, five businesses. Maggie M. thought the yoga business was a
class held within the store, it didn’t count as a separate business. Barbara stated that the yoga studio was
approved separately as a business, as it replaced another approved business on
site that was discontinued. Roger agreed
it was approved separately. Steve stated
that he was approved for Real Estate and the ability to rent two offices. Madge said that it sounded like it wasn’t
clear in the ordinance. Steve said what
Mr. Muse was asking for made sense. CEO
Demers stated the difference between what Steve was approved for and Mr. Muse,
is that Steve had a conforming lot. He said Mr. Muse had a non-conforming lot
and a non-conforming structure. Mr. Muse
asked if it was a non-conforming structure
Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – February 25, 2020 Page
8 of 10
because
it was too close to the road? CEO Demers
stated that he believed so, but he would have to measure it. Steve thought he was as close to the road as
Mr. Muse.
Steve
F. thought for this area along route 109, it would be a good idea for the board
to look at perhaps changing the requirements for business. CEO Demers said the board needs to be careful
to change the ordinance to suit one particular situation. He said it would have to be
non-specific. Madge B. said her concern
in this area was the number of entrances onto Route 109. Steve agreed noting the traffic doesn’t abide
by the speed limit. Madge agreed the
only thing the board can look at is what is in the ordinance now, and noted
there was a drainage issue in this location.
Madge
B. liked the idea of multiple businesses all using one entrance/exit, instead
of having multiple entrances onto Route 109. Steve F. said at present the board has to work with what is in the
ordinance but perhaps the board can look at this for town meeting next
year. Other members agreed. Roger A. stated that the Comprehensive Plan
would like to see businesses located along Route 109 & 11. He felt the board just needs to change the
ordinance.
CEO
Demers asked if a variance from the ordinance would be the avenue Mr. Muse
would need to take if he wanted to have multiple businesses this year. Roger A.
said yes, because the board would have to give an application approval a no
vote. Roger did not see the ZBA granting
a variance, for one reason, Mr. Muse can get a return for his lot. CEO Demers said, “Then he would need a change
in the ordinance before he could have two uses”. Roger agreed. He said at present he can only have one use per the ordinance, as it is
written now.
Mr.
Muse asked how a change could be made to the ordinance? Roger A. stated the board would need to come
up with wording to make the change. Mr.
Muse asked how it could be suggested? Barbara F. stated, “What we are doing right now”. Ann H. said, “Then the town votes on it in
March”.
Mr.
Muse said he would like an apartment in the back and a small seasonal business
in the front. He asked if with a variance that would be allowed? Roger said there were four criteria that all
have to be met in order to obtain a variance. He said if you can get a return on your property, the ZBA cannot grant you
a variance. Roger said if you cannot get
a return, then it’s a hardship. Roger
did not believe what Mr. Muse was discussing was a hardship by definition. CEO Demers agreed with Roger and said he did
not see a variance as a viable avenue.
CEO
Demers stated that at present he could have one commercial use, as it is being
used now, he could change to another commercial use, or change it to a single
family dwelling. Mr. Muse said, “Those
are the options”. Roger said, “Yes”. Roger said the only other way is to get
additional acreage. Mr. Muse said, “OK,
thanks for your time”. --------------------------------------
CEO
Demers stated that Mr. Berube came into his office because he wanted to
demolish an existing house and replace it, which was on a non-conforming lot of
record. He believed the structure could
be rebuilt. Roger A. agreed stating a
Growth Permit would be required. It was
noted the house can meet setbacks. ---------------------------------------
Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – February 25, 2020 Page
9 of 10
CEO
Demers stated that the business ‘Whole Nine Yards’, Marc Boisse’, had plans to
move the business to Acton, so the lot will not have that conditional use any
longer; then he wants to add an in-law apartment to his home. He said, this will create a multi-family
dwelling. He noted that it was a non-conforming structure because it did not
meet setbacks to the road. He said Madge B. pointed out that a non-conforming structure
is addressed under §105-4.D(8) ‘Change of use of a nonconforming structure’.
Madge read it as follows: The use of a nonconforming structure may not be
changed to another use unless the Planning Board, after receiving a written
application, determines that the new use will have no greater adverse impact on
the waterbody, tributary stream, or wetland, or on the subject or adjacent
properties and resources than the existing use.’
Steve
F. stated, “So he is going from single family to multifamily”. CEO Demers stated that he has the square
footage and lot frontage, the structure is non-conforming. Madge stated that the board should review it,
it doesn’t mean we will turn it down. Maggie M. thought the only issue would be an increase to the septic. The
board felt that was up to CEO Demers and he did not see it as an issue.
CEO
Demers stated that he would not get the occupancy permit until the business is
gone. The board agreed that once Mr. Boisse’ moved the business he would be
able to have the in-law apartment. Roger
A. stated that Mr. Boisse’ would need a Growth Permit in order to have the
in-law apartment. CEO Demers felt that
Mr. Boisse’ could add on now but he would not be able to get the OC until the
business is gone. Roger said again that
Mr. Boisse’ would need a Growth Permit to proceed; every unit or apartment
needs a growth permit. Steve asked if
the board could review the change when they review the Growth Permit. Madge B. did not see why not but she wasn’t
sure what form to use because she did not believe this was a conditional
use. CEO Demers agreed that it was a
change of use. Madge didn’t think the
form would matter to the applicants as long as they were not being charged.
Barbara F. asked if the board could use the Best Possible Location form as it
also deals with applicability of standards? CEO Demers said he would review the permit to see if it would work.
Roger
A. said again that no occupancy permit can be obtained as long as the business is
on site. CEO Demers said it would happen
the same day, the in-laws move in when the business moves. ---------------------------------
Roger
A. said the board needs to look at language to change the ordinance to be able
to accommodate business such as what Mr. Muse wants to do. CEO Demers asked if he was talking about
making a new zone? General Purpose and
then a Route 109 zone. Madge B. thought
it made sense to make a new zone. Roger felt it would make sense to create a
business zone along 109 and 11. Steve F. thought it made sense to place
business in that area, so you don’t have to worry about the neighbors. He felt it also made sense to have more than
one business in one building because many businesses do not need a lot of
space. Madge added that the board
doesn’t want more driveways onto Route 109 than necessary. Steve said there were a few non-conforming
lots in that area now. Madge said that
was all the more reason to look into changing the zoning.
Barbara
F. suggested having workshops on this issue in the near future. She will look into what other towns are doing
that are similar in size to Shapleigh with commercial districts. ---------------------------------
Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – February 25, 2020 Page
10 of 10
CEO
Demers had one additional question, regarding Adrianne Knox’s business, ‘Knox
Auto Body’. He asked how the parking
area was calculated when it was approved? Roger said it depended on what type of business. Madge B. believed the board likely went by the
square footage of the structure and the number of employees. CEO Demers said he
understand, that was what they were trying to figure out, what ordinance the
board looked at. Madge believed it was
105-43 ‘Off-street parking and loading’. Roger agreed.
Nothing
more was discussed.
*************************
Growth Permits Map 5, Lot 20-4 (White Tail Lane) –
New Home GP
#01-20 This
is a legal lot in an approved subdivision known as ‘Evergreen Overlook’ approved
in 2006.
Map 5, Lot 20-7 (White Tail Lane) –
New Home GP
#02-20 This
is a legal lot in an approved subdivision known as ‘Evergreen Overlook’ approved
in 2006.
*************************
The Planning Board meeting ended at 7:50
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
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, March 10, 2020.
Respectfully
submitted, Barbara
Felong, Land Use Secretary
|
Planning Board
July 11, 2020 5:50 PM