| June 24, 2020 | |
|
Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes Tuesday,
June 9, 2020
This
evenings meeting was conducted via Zoom due to Covid-19. This is the first meeting held since March
10, 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.
Ann
Harris was a regular member this evening for the election of officers, whereby
Roger Allaire did not want to nominate or vote being the existing Chairman.
************************
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 7:05
pm
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 via Zoom for the review of the application.
Roger
A. opened the Zoom meeting and asked if there were any comments from members
for Mr. Logan? Roland
L. began by stating he thought a question was raised as to whether or not there
was a wetland on the property during the first meeting? Or was it a misunderstanding
on his part? Steve F. noted that
information was given to board members by Barbara F. that indicated there may
be a wetland on the property.
Mr.
Logan stated that when he met with the Code Officer it was noted on the Town
overlay that there was a wetland showing on the map, along the right-hand
sideline, that was predominately off the lot. He asked if CEO Demers wanted to weigh in on this? Mr. Logan stated it was nowhere near where someone
would build, it was predominately in the setback area, so he and the CEO didn’t
feel it was germane to anywhere on this lot where people would build, near the Gulf
Road were the logical building sites are.
CEO
Demers stated that he believed there was plenty of room for building on
site. Mr. Logan wasn’t sure if that addressed
the comment. He stated he didn’t hear a
comment on this at the earlier meeting that was held on February 25th.
Roger A. stated that it wasn’t brought up to the board on that date, neither
the wetland or the brook that is showing on the map was mentioned. Roger said during the preliminary, he thought
Mr. Logan mentioned the wetland and the stream and stated both were on the
remaining piece and
Page 1 of 20 Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2020 Page 2 of 20
not
on lots 1 thru 3. Roger asked if that was
true? Mr. Logan stated there was no
remaining piece, this is an entire lot split into four lots. Roger agreed. Mr. Logan said the wetland they may be referring to is a wetland on the largest
lot at the back of the lot, down the right-hand sideline. He said CEO Demers found it on the lot on the
Town map. Mr. Logan stated he had test
pits halfway back on the lot and there is nothing evident in that area on the front
half of the property. He said again
there may be something only on the right-hand property line near the stone wall
in the side setback area.
Roland
L. said he raised the question because it was brought to the attention of the board.
He said he wasn’t suggesting the subdivision should not proceed, he just wanted
clarification about that point. This is
the reason he brought it up. Mr. Logan
stated, referring back to his original notes he made on February 25th,
where he stated to the board that no significant wetlands of any kind were
found in any of the areas where building would be likely to occur and he had
nothing that was obvious or evident from air photography, other than the
isolated thing that was noted off on the right-hand edge of the lot. He said
that was how he presented it on the 25th and it was to the best of
his knowledge the way it is now.
Steve
F. asked CEO Demers if he felt the mapping overlay doesn’t quite line up with the
lot. CEO Demers stated that he would
rely on someone like Mr. Logan to delineate it on the lot and present it to
him, he felt it wasn’t up to him to determine where these lines are. Mr. Logan said he could speak to how the wetland
lines are originating to get onto the Town map. He said that often there is
some irregularity in the lines. He said
many times they are polygon shapes that were derived from air photos. He said that they are generally not spot checked
in the field. He said the scale of the overlays probably came off of what is
known as the national wetlands inventory map or the NWI Map, they generally
prepare those at 1” + 1000 feet or something like that. He believed it was possible to have an aberration
in the line. He said if there is serious concern, he can head back out to the
site. He admitted he hated to go to the rear of a 50-acre lot when no one is
going to build down over a deep slope. He said if you look at the topo map that
was supplied to the board for review, many of those back slopes are quite steep
and he didn’t think anyone was going to go over the top of the hill to find a
buildable site. He said at Test Pit #10, you are back 1100 feet or so. He said if it pleases the board, he can go
back and confirm the validity, but added that he had no doubts with multiple sites
on each lot and separation between the sites, with the nearest ones 200 feet or
so apart, the farthest ones apart of probably 4 or 500 feet. He has a strong
sense of the buildable area on these lots. If there is an isolated wetland
pocket, he can go out, find it, and locate it, if that is what pleases the board.
Roger
A. stated that he noticed on the map provided to the board in February, that
the designation is on the rear of lot 4, on the righthand back corner. He said at this time he was only looking at whether
or not to grant lots 1, 2 & 3, realizing lot 4 is the mother lot, and it
will continue to exist as the mother lot; so tomorrow when someone wants to
build on 4, he presumes but does not guarantee, that they would come off the
Gulf Road and stay close to Gulf Road and not go to the back of the property. Mr. Logan said they were making it lot #4,
because the board required it to be the fourth lot, it is the mother lot and
the remaining land, and it is intended to function as a functional building
lot, as the fourth lot in this minor subdivision. Mr. Logan stated to Roger,
that as we have learned, that if anyone should want to further divide these
lots, they have to have a private access and need to create a road and that they
will have to go back in front of the board, and it will need another entire
review. Roger agreed. Mr. Logan stated that was a point that was
brought to him early on, which is why he felt this plan was adequate for review
and possible approval at this time.
Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2020 Page 3 of 20
Mr.
Logan wanted to clarify for the board that between February and now, they did
add several protective notes to the plan. He said one that was requested was that no further lots would be allowed,
or no further divisions would be allowed, without board review. He said that is
now on the plan as Note #10. He said
this indicated that anyone that wanted to do anything more than what the plan
indicated would have to come back before the board. He said the other thing he added
was a note about fire suppression and the requested waivers.
Mr.
Logan said there was one other thing he would like to discuss with the board at
this time, which is a little bit of a departure from the first application. He
stated they first considered a 10-lot subdivision, prior to the road requirement,
so they backed down to four lots. When
they were considering sprinkler systems, they were parceling out the expense of
sprinklers over a 10-lot division. He
said they were wondering what the boards consideration might be for getting one
more possible waiver for sprinkler systems. He said he didn’t know if the board for a minor subdivision would grant
a waiver of fire suppression all together or not? He also wondered if the Fire Chief would be willing
to handle these houses like any other house on the Gulf Road. He said he only mentioned this, and he noted
it had nothing to do with cost, that it had to do with practical matters. He said he wasn’t aware that when someone has
a fire suppression system, that system must be maintained through all seasons; thus,
it becomes difficult to put a seasonal residence on one of these lots. He said this
is because you cannot leave the house unprotected through the winter. He said he had at least two clients since he
came before the board that have changed residences because they desire to go to
Florida for the winter and shut their house down here in Maine. He said because
they had sprinkled houses, they could not do that, so they sold the house they
had that was sprinkled to be able to buy a different house, perhaps a non-subdivision
lot, that wasn’t required to have a sprinkler system. He said he was bringing
it to the board as a consideration and a possible matter for discussion in this
public hearing. He said it was just a four-lot minor subdivision, so he was wondering
if the board would consider or if they have in the past, considered a waiver,
for a cistern. He thought fire suppression
cisterns were about a dollar a gallon, and here a 30- or 40,000-gallon cistern,
could be up in the $40,000 price range, which is more than his client would
like to consider. He said if the board
did not consider waiving the fire suppression for a cistern, they would likely
fall back to sprinklers but that might limit the type of market this subdivision
becomes. He believed there would be less likelihood of people putting in a
seasonal home.
Roger
A. stated that this will be discussed during the regular meeting. Mr. Logan stated he just wanted to present it
here at the public hearing in the event the board could address it officially
and they could still proceed. Roger said at this time, the board was looking
for public input to see if there were any concerns from the public, so that
once the board goes into deliberations on the criteria, all the information
will be presented to be able to approve or make recommendations for any
changes. Mr. Logan stated that he
understood and thanked the board.
Mr.
Logan asked if there were any other questions?
Mr.
Corey Normand – Abutter Map 6, Lot 39A-2 – Mr. Normand
stated his concern was in the last six years there were four logging operations
in the area. He said it was cutting away at the road, and he noted that he was
the one that paid for the road. He stated that he paid for 1800 feet of the road
20 years ago, and he has built the road twice in order for the Town to agree to
maintain it. He said his concern was
more traffic, more construction. He said
he understood things change and he didn’t have an issue with the subdivision,
but his concern was the road. Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2020 Page 4 of 20
Mr.
Normand stated that the Town has been very lax at maintaining the road since
day one. He said it was kept up when Mr.
Ridley was Road Commissioner, the last time decent work was done was when Mr.
Winchell was Road Commissioner, and since then it is horrible. He said every time the logging trucks come
through; it started past Fleming’s property, the Scamman’s, the Thomas’s and
this property just got logged again. He said his concern was the road, and right
now it is sunken in and no one has followed up or taken care of the damage,
bringing it back to what it once was; whereas, now the road has sunk and the ditches
are higher than the road. He said every
rainstorm the road gets washed out, the logging at the bottom they filled the
ditch in with stone and he called the Road Commissioner several times but
nothing was ever addressed, so now the road washes out every single storm.
Mr.
Logan asked if the portion of the road that was blocked was due to Mr.
Libby?
Mr.
Normand said that it was not.
Mr.
Logan said he wanted it to be clear it was not Mr. Libby.
Mr.
Normand stated that there was actually five logging operations, including Mr.
Libby.
Mr.
Logan stated that he can only speak to Mr. Libby, he did not know about the
other ones.
Mr.
Normand realized that, he was just trying to lay out how the deterioration has
taken place and nothing is ever done. He
said that he lived at the end of the road, so he has to drive the road the
most, therefore, it is his problem. He
said he has called regarding the road, as have the other people on the
road. He stated that Mr. Libby was the
last one to log and use the road, and he wasn’t saying it was his fault, but he
wanted to voice his concern with traffic on the road in the future. He felt before we move forward, the board
needs to look back at all the work that has been done on the road and lack of
responsibility. He stated that when logging
was taking place before, he spoke with the Town and they said they would work
it out with the logger at the end when the job was done, the Town would handle
it. He stated that nothing was ever handled, and that it was hard to see. He said he put out $20,000 for the road, which
he knew wasn’t much now, but it was a lot of money in 1998. He said again that
he had to do it twice because there were requirements for culverts and
ditching, and the road had to be so wide. He said now they have lost 2 feet of roadway. He said in spots you can
barely pass two cars. He concluded that was his concern and he hoped the board made
note of it.
Mr.
John Caramihalis – Abutter Map 6, Lot 39A-1 (Jo Jo Enterprises)
- Mr. Caramihalis said the comments that were discussed earlier about no further
subdivision, he didn’t see anything on the plan he had in relation to notes
that he received from Barbara F. on Friday. (Barbara sent John the latest stormwater plan
as he was concerned about the wetland on site, along with the original 8 ½ x 11
plan on file, which did not contain Note #10.) He said he hasn’t seen the latest plan.
Roger
A. stated that the board had the plan on file which the board recently received
from Mr. Logan. Mr. Caramihalis asked if Roger would read Note #10. Roger stated there were now 12 notes, and that
Note #10 did state that there would be no further division of lots allowed
without additional Planning Board review. Roger said that this was actually a State standard for any town or city
in the State of Maine, that any change to a subdivision plan had to come back
to the board to be amended. He said the
board wants to be sure that whomever buys a lot knows by looking at the plan,
knows about this fact, so they cannot Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2020 Page 5 of 20
divide
the lot saying they never knew they had to come to the board. Roger said that is why the board wanted it as
a note on the plan.
Mr.
Caramihalis stated the other thing is the plan shows Overbey as the owner of an
abutting lot, but he now actually owned the lot under Jo Jo Enterprises LLC.
Mr.
Caramihalis stated there was a seasonal stream that was on the property and it
was fairly defined before they logged it. He realized this was typical of
logging. He said his concern was that now
it affects the abutters because now the water just goes down the path of least resistance. He said that would be the reason he would
want to know where the wetlands are; what the flow of the water was on
site. The water comes from Elayne
Anderson’s lot southeast through the property and drifts down toward the people
on the Garland Road. He said there is a
wetland area on Ouellette’s property but he wasn’t sure if it stretched into
this property or not. Roger A. thought
that was the wetland they were talking about earlier, that just came a little
bit onto this property. Mr. Normand stated that this wetland / swamp was probably
about 50 feet from the property line at the most. Mr. Caramihalis wasn’t sure
if it was a vernal pool or not.
Mr.
Caramihalis asked if there were any defined curb cuts or can they put the curb
cuts wherever they feel like it? Roger A.
stated the curb cut will be determined with the Road Commissioner. Mr. Caramihalis thought that was fair. Mr. Normand asked if they were talking about where
the driveway goes? Roger A. said,
yes.
Mr.
Caramihalis said with respect to fire suppression, and he wouldn’t necessarily
want it on his house, but having sat on the Planning Board for quite awhile, he
thought the determination of fire suppression was up to the Fire Chief to
determine what they would use for fire suppression. He said in relation to the seasonal comment
by Mr. Logan, glycol can be used and is used fairly regularly because the attic
areas tend to get cold and they put glycol in the system to be sure it doesn’t
freeze in the attic in case a piece of insulation gets pushed out of the way by
a mouse or something.
Mr.
Caramihalis felt it was a straight forward subdivision and wasn’t sure if it
was a minor subdivision, it might be based on the Town’s ordinance. He said if you put in a road you can put in more
than four lots but if you don’t put in a road you can only do up to four lots.
He felt it was a Town restriction and not minor in nature. Roger A. stated it is minor based on the number
of lots, if it went to a fifth lot, the fifth lot creates a major
subdivision.
Mr.
Caramihalis said the main concern was the drainage because some does drain onto
his property. He said his property is just a wood lot, so he wasn’t overly concerned,
but he did believe there was a fairly defined seasonal stream before the
logging. He said about every tree got
cut, and he wasn’t blaming the logger, but he would like to see the seasonal
stream be defined in some manner, so it doesn’t get filled in or diverted anymore
and cause issues for the abutters.
Roger
A. asked Mr. Normand if he had any additional questions? Mr. Normand said he did not, he said the road
was his concern.
Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2020 Page 6 of 20
Roger
A. stated that the board received a memo stating that the Road Commissioner,
John Burnell wanted to have a drainage easement on Lot #1. Roger asked Mr. Logan to note this, and that RC
Burnell wanted this to get rid of the water in the ditch line coming off the property.
Mr.
Neil Cormier – Abutter Map 8, Lot 62A-1 - Mr. Neil Cormier
stated that this area was a problem area. He said that he owned the property across the road in this area, and it
was where the water runs to and also washes the bottom of his driveway out.
Mr.
Logan stated that he wanted a clarification of where this easement wants to be,
and more specifics based on the Road Commissioners request. He said he would not have an issue providing for
it, he needed to have a clear notion of what it needs to be for the surveyors,
so it can be put on the plan and documented adequately. He said he needed some definition from the
Road Commissioner. Roger said, OK. Steve F. wanted to know what RC Burnell
wanted to have there. Roger said it was not
noted on the memo and RC Burnell wasn’t able to attend this evening. Roger said
they will have to check to see exactly what he wants on the plan. Mr. Caramihalis
said that what he believed he was looking for, was when the water comes down
the hill on that ditch line, its going to turn and go down the road. He thinks he wants the ability to keep the
water flowing, so it doesn’t build up in that location. Mr. Caramihalis noted that it has been a
problem area for awhile. Steve F.
thought an onsite meeting would be best. Mr. Logan said he was amenable to that.
Mr.
Logan stated that with respect to Mr. Caramihalis’s concern with stormwater
runoff, he did provide the board with a stormwater narrative from a
professional engineer and it did discuss the potential for negative impacts to
abutters. He said the general opinion of
that report was that there was no adverse effect to abutters. Mr. Logan said he would be happy to provide Mr.
Caramihalis with a copy of the report. Mr. Caramihalis stated that he did receive a copy of the report (Barbara
mailed it to him prior to this evenings meeting). He felt it was standard boiler plate drainage
on existing topo. He said his point was
that there was a defined area where the water flowed and that has been altered.
He stated that that water needs a place to go and now it is just going to go to
the path of least resistance, which could be onto abutters property. He did not
see the before and after, meaning he didn’t see what it was like before they
cut the trees and then after they cut it.
Mr.
Normand stated that there was never a ditch in the past, it always flowed into
the property where the landing is. He
thought what RC Burnell was stating was there should be a ditch going by there
to get it past that property into a ditch that goes beyond the property. He wasn’t sure it changed with the logging,
it just made it a little soupier. He said
it has always been a big mud pit off that side of the road.
Mr.
Logan stated that he looked at the lot before it was cut and he concurred that the
ditch line was not well established there. Mr. Normand stated that they just kind of dug a trench into the woods to
divert it. Mr. Logan stated that was
called a ditch turnout. Mr. Normand thought a few more were needed. He felt
before anymore construction happened, the water and ditching needs to be
addressed.
Roger
A. asked if there were any additional comments? There were none.
The
public hearing closed at 7:32 p.m.
************************* Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2020 Page 7 of 20
The minutes from Tuesday, March 10,
2020 were accepted as read.
The Planning Board meeting started at
7:32 p.m.
*************************
ELECTION OF OFFICERS Maggie Moody nominated Roger Allaire as
Chairman of the Planning Board. Ann Harris 2nd the motion.
Roger Allaire accepted the nomination. All members were in favor. Roger
Allaire will remain Chairman of the Planning Board.
Madge
Baker nominated Steve Foglio as Vice Chairman of the Planning Board. Ann Harris 2nd the motion.
Steve Foglio accepted the nomination. All members were in favor. Steve Foglio will remain Vice Chairman of
the Planning Board.
Barbara Felong will remain Secretary of
the Planning Board. Note: This position is
hired by the Selectmen
************************
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 via Zoom for the review of the application.
The preliminary application
for the 4-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
Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2020 Page 8 of 20
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.
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 James 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).
For
this evenings review, provided was a Stormwater Management Narrative drafted by
Atlantic Resource Consultants, written by Jason A. Vafiades, PE #12661, which
concluded the project will use long-term and short-term erosion control measures
that will mitigate environmental impacts from stormwater; a typical Erosion
& Sediment Control Plan provided by Longview Partners, LLC for individual
home
Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2020 Page 9 of 20
construction;
and a revised subdivision plan entitled ‘Subdivision Plan, Map 8, Parcel 61,
Gulf Road, Shapleigh, Maine’ drafted by Isaiah E. Plante, PLS, which added
Notes #10, #11 & #12. These notes read as follows: 10) No further division of lots allowed
without additional Planning Board review. 11) Fire suppression for lots will be through
approved sprinkler systems. 12) Waivers were provided for the following: - Capped iron pins at subdivision corners
instead of stone monuments - Sidewalks (There are none on Gulf Road
to connect with)
Roger
A. opened the review up by telling Mr. Logan he believed it would be a good
idea to contact Road Commissioner Burnell and meet with him on site to see
where he wants the easement and then get it depicted on the final plan. Mr.
Logan agreed a face to face meeting would be best. Mr. Logan said he could flag
it in the field and then get the surveyor out. He asked if Barbara F. could connect him with RC Burnell. She said absolutely. Mr. Logan asked if any members of the board wanted
to be there when he met with RC Burnell? Roger said he could meet on site at a time that was convenient for Mr.
Logan and RC Burnell. Barbara will
notify the members of the time of the meeting, so they can join if they are
able to.
Roland
L. stated with respect to fire suppression, where the Town of Shapleigh has a
new Fire Chief, the board might want his input in order to make the
decision. Roger A. agreed, and stated
the board can contact him to let him know that this is before the board. Roger said he was still in favor of any
residential building that goes in to be required to have sprinklers. He said in
subdivision, if the board grants a waiver there has to be a reason why it would
not be warranted. He did not believe the
fact that the home might be a seasonal residence is a warranted reason. He believed
the board had to provide a way for fire protection for the residents. Mr. Logan
stated that at this point he will state that they are going to leave in
sprinklers and be done with fire protection. He said he did not want to belabor
the discussion. Mr. Logan said, “OK, let’s take that out of the mix”. Roger A. said, “Fine”. Roger nodded in agreement.
Madge
B. asked if there was a site visit? Roger
A. stated that he had done one. Steve F.
stated that the plan was the board would do them individually. Mr. Logan agreed, he said that is what his
notes reflected from the February meeting. Roland L. said he went in March. Maggie M. said she went over the weekend. Madge said she had driven by
it but she wondered about the intermittent stream. She asked if it was the one
on the Town overlay map? Mr. Logan was
not sure, but if it was on the towns overlay, that is probably what they were
speaking about. Madge said she could go back and look on her own if everyone
else is satisfied that they have seen it well enough.
Steve
F. stated that as a matter of procedure he thought the stream and wetlands
should be shown on the plan but those wetland and streams will be dealt with at
the Code Enforcement level. Madge B. agreed. Steve felt the board can go back
and look at it but the CEO has his own set of rules for wetlands and streams.
He thought if the board were identifying a building site on the plan it would
be one thing, such as a building envelope that would be representative, but barring
that, he thought the top lot was huge. He
said there might be a 75-foot setback if anything on that seasonal stream. Mr.
Logan was willing to say Test Pits #7, 8 & 9 were the building area and
anything is outside of that has to come back to the board. He felt that is the
area that will be targeted for construction but he can add protective measures
if the board would like. He said the two items that were recently described are
nowhere near these test pits. Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2020 Page 10 of 20
Ann
H. said that if there were a seasonal stream there, then CEO Demers would set
the actual setbacks for the structure when the permit is pulled. She asked if
this was correct? Mr. Logan stated that
this would be determined by the proximity of the stream to what was being proposed. He said if it was 1000 feet away, CEO Demers
wouldn’t request any additional information. Ann said that was her
thought. CEO Demers stated, “Correct”.
Mr.
Logan asked if at this time the board would be satisfied with a particular
building window or location for only Lot #4 because lots 1 thru 3 having nothing
but beautiful upland through the entire parcel. He asked if that would satisfy
the board? Steve F. did not feel the need
for any restrictive building envelope, as long as we note on the plan where the
stream is, that would satisfy him. Mr.
Logan stated that he will go back and map the location, isolate it, and put it
on the plan. He said if it is a stream and meets the definition, then it will
have a setback. He said if it is runoff and is not a stream, it won’t have a
setback. He said again he would map it.
Ann
H. said that he could do a condition for the road easement after he speaks with
the road commissioner. Madge B. said that would work for her; if there is a
streambed and it can be noted on the plan, that would be good. Madge did not
think the board needed to require a building envelope. Steve F. agreed.
Roger
A stated that Barbara F. will get in touch with the Road Commissioner and set
up a meeting on site with Mr. Logan and any board member that would like to
attend. Roger said he would be there.
Roger
A. asked if any of the members had any issues with the waivers requested? Mr. Logan stated, “I thought they were already
granted”. Barbara F. stated, “No, they have
not been voted on yet”. Roger agreed.
Roger
A. asked if anyone wanted to make a motion on the request to use capped iron
pins instead of stone monuments?
Roland
L. made the motion to waive the requirement, Article 89-30.A,
“stone monuments shall be set at all street intersections and at all corner and
angle points” and instead they will use capped rebar. Ann 2nd the
motion. All members were in favor. By a vote of 5 – 0, the motion passed
unanimously.
Roland L. made the motion
to waive the
requirement, Article 89-36.M, “sidewalks shall be installed within all
subdivisions within the urban compact area” due to the fact this subdivision will not have an internal road, it is in a
rural area, and does not fall within an Urban Compact Zone. Madge B. 2nd
the motion. All members were in favor. By a vote of 5 – 0, the motion passed
unanimously. Roland L. made the motion to waive the requirement, Article 89-29.A, “Utilities shall be installed underground
except as otherwise approved by the Board.”. All parcels have access to the Gulf
Road where there are already overhead utilities running adjacent to the
property. Madge B. 2nd the
motion. All members were in favor. By a vote of 5 – 0, the motion passed unanimously.
Roger A. stated the waivers have been approved.
Roger said now they will meet with RC Burnell, so the easement can be put on
the plan. Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2020 Page 11 of 20
Mr. Logan stated that he was no longer going to
deliberate sprinklers, they would go forward and require sprinklers in the new
homes for fire suppression. Mr. Logan
stated that Mr. Caramihalis had concern over the stream and at least one board
member brought it up as well. He said
that then Steve F. started a discussion about mapping it or not and having the
CEO deal with the required setbacks. Mr. Logan was not sure if he was going to
map the intermittent stream on the map or not. Roger A. stated he would like it
delineated on the plan. Mr. Logan said
he got the impression that he was to go and find it and put it on the map.
Roger stated, “Yes”. Mr. Logan stated, “OK”. Nothing further was
discussed. -------------------------------------
Amendment to the Subdivision known as
Hidden Cove – Extend Subdivision Improvements Deadline from 2020 to 2023
– Map 9, Part of Lot 1A (Apple Road & West Shore Drive) – James Chadbourne,
Applicant; Hidden Cove, LLC Property Owner; Robert Reinken, ReinCorp
Development, Representative Mr. Reinken was present via Zoom for the review of
the application.
Hidden Cove Subdivision Property Owner: Hidden Cove, LLC Applicant: James
Chadbourne 173 Butternut Trail 173
Butternut Trail Wells, Maine 04090 Wells,
Maine 04090
Surveyor: Joseph
Stanley , PLS #2453 Representative: Robert Reinken 455
Main Street 469 Main Street Springvale,
ME 04083 Springvale, ME 04083 207.490.1878, ext. 3
Land Information Location: YCRD
Book 395, Page 20 Tax
Map 9, Lot(s) 1A Zoning: General Purpose Part
of the property lies within 250 feet of the high-water mark of Square Pond. Acreage to be Developed: 8.6 Acres
General Information No. of Lots: 3 Water Supply: Individual
Wells Sewage Disposal: Individual
Septic Tanks Fire Protection : Private Sprinklers There Are No Proposed: Recreation Areas Common Land Waiver(s): See Plan & Findings Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2020 Page 12 of 20
Along with the application, provided
was a letter from Robert Reinken, dated February 28, 2020, which stated: It is
our request, on behalf of James Chadbourne, that Planning Board Action #4 of
the Finding of Facts be amended to allow all subdivision improvements,
including construction of the private way, to be completed within five years of
the date of approval. The date of approval is May 8, 2018.
In addition, received was a copy of the
approved subdivision plan, dated May 8, 2018, recorded at the YCRD on May 31,
2018, as Book 395, Page 20; and a copy of the Findings of Fact signed and dated
by Planning Board members on May 8, 2018.
Provided to board members prior to this
evenings meeting was a copy of the Irrevocable Letter of Credit from Partners
Bank of New England, 900 Main Street, Sanford, ME 04073, Letter of Credit Number
05012020, Date of Issue May 1, 2020, in the amount of $58, 914.00 with an
expiration date of May 1, 2022. The purpose of the Letter of Credit is for the
construction of the private way to access proposed plan Lots #1 and #2 engineered
by Craig A Burgess, PE #12638 of Sebago Technics and providing electricity to
proposed plan Lots #1 and #2.
Roger A. asked Mr. Reinken if he would
like to explain to the board why he was here. Mr. Reinken stated that he was before the board to represent Mr.
Chadbourne for Hidden Cove Subdivision located on Square Pond. He said they were coming back to the board
with a request regarding Findings of the Facts; Item #4 had stated that if the
improvements hadn’t been completed within 2 years of the approval which was
about 2 years prior to Covid. He said, “We
are before the board with the renewed Irrevocable Letter of Credit, which the
board has a copy, and we are asking to have the road improvement deadline
stretch out for another two years”. He said originally, he had said five years,
but after a discussion with Barbara he believed the five years was from the
approval date and not from the expired date. He said sales have been slow and
they have not built the road because of that; they hope to build the road in
the near future but as required in the Findings of Fact they had to come back
before the board.
Roger A. asked if the pins had been set
for the lots? Mr. Reinken stated that
all the pins had been set. Mr. Reinken
stated the only improvements not done are the private way. Roger added, “And the power”. Mr. Reinken
said, “Yes, and the power”.
Roger A. asked for any comments. Steve
F. stated he had no concerns. Roger said the only comment he had was they were
only looking at dropping 500 feet of road and just to bring power in, he thought
another two years was a long period of time. He said to ask for 2 more years,
he thought was excessive. He noted this was just his opinion. He didn’t know
why this shouldn’t be null and void.
Ann H. asked how fast a power company is
getting out there? She said many times the power companies are taking forever
to get out. She wondered if there was a time frame for that. Roger A. said, “Actually
power is underground and is by applicant, it’s not the power company”.
Steve F. said he thought that it doesn’t
make sense to do the road until such time that one of the lots are sold. He believed
this was the applicant’s stance, he asked if he was correct? Mr. Reinken stated
that he was correct. Steve said there were no adverse changes to the property,
so he had no problem with the amendment. Ann H. said nothing was being hurt by amending it, she just wasn’t sure
if the power company was part of the issue. Steve didn’t believe it was due to
the power company, he thought it was a matter of trying to do the road as the
lots got sold.
Roger A. said that the board already relaxed
the standard by not requiring that the road be paved, and he hoped the road will
stand up to the adverse weather. He said
there was an engineered plan. His thought
Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2020 Page 13 of 20
was the sooner it is completed the
better off we are. Roger added that he didn’t want to use the Letter of Credit
to get it done, he would rather go null and void.
Roland L. asked what would be accomplished
by going null and void and what would that require of the applicant if that was
the direction that the board takes. Roger A. said if the approval went null and void the subdivision would no
longer exist. He said you are entitled to sell a lot every five years, which
they could have the lot on Town Farm Road, which is fine. He stated that access
from Acton may not possibly be allowed.
Roger A. said with respect to the Town,
we would prefer not to have to grab money to do improvements to the lots in order
to get the subdivision in as approved by the board. He said that was the reason
he would choose null and void. They would get their letter of credit back, all the
monies except for the legal issues of going null and void.
Ann H. asked if this would give them
the money to get everything done in a timely manner. Roger said, no, not with
null and void, they no longer have a subdivision. Ann said, “Gotcha, ok”.
Roland L. said he didn’t think that was
the applicant’s preference or they wouldn’t have come back before the board. He
asked Mr. Reinken if he was correct in assuming this? Mr. Reinken said, “That is correct, I am just
following Finding of the Facts, 4, that required us to come back to the board
for reconsideration. The letter of credit, the irrevocable letter of credit is
placed to protect Shapleigh from the applicant selling the lots and never building
the road. That’s why it is in place. If the road hadn’t been built and lot had
been sold, then the Town of Shapleigh would have been in a position to call the
letter and build the road themselves or have the road built. That’s not the
case. We are not here for that reason. We’ve taken it upon ourselves to renew
the letter without the request of Shapleigh, which is in your hands, and our
intention is exactly that, we were not trying to build the road prior to
selling lot 1 or 2.” Mr. Reinken said he
thought in the subdivision ordinance it actually refers to five years for improvements
to be completed. He said number 4 of the Findings of Facts was something that was
added by the Planning Board which isn’t typical of a subdivision approval. He
said they were before the board to continue moving forward, marketing the lots
and planning on building the road according to the engineered plans. He believed
nothing has changed since the approval, just time has gone by.
Roland L. stated that he supported the
idea of the two-year extension. He added that if they are unable to sell a lot
and get the road completed, then the Town will have no choice but to exercise
the option of borrowing from the line of credit and getting the job done. He said
he would rather see this route than putting them back through the process of filing
a new application, and then holding public hearings and everything else. This has already been done. The application
has been approved, unfortunately, they didn’t get to the point where a lot was
sold and build the road but he supported the idea of a two-year extension. Mr.
Reinken stated, “Thank you”.
Madge B. stated that she agreed and
seconded that motion. The board voted to accept the extension. Barbara F. stated that she understood the
members wanted to extend the applicants date of approval, but she pointed out that
this is typically a two-meeting process when you amend a subdivision, a public
hearing is held and a notice goes out to abutters. She asked the board if they were not going to
do that? She wanted to be clear as to the fact the board was not going to hold
the second meeting, which they usually do for an amendment to a subdivision.
Steve F. stated that he felt the last
thing the board should do is violate any type of protocol, so he felt if that
is what the board had to do, then they should motion to do it. Roland L. stated that he wasn’t aware they
needed an additional meeting and he agreed with Steve that they need to do what
is typical. He Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2020 Page 14 of 20
did not want to do anything that would
call this action into question. Barbara said that was her concern, she felt the
board needed to do it, as they normally do it. The other board members agreed.
Mr. Reinken asked Barbara F. if she
considered this an amendment to the subdivision or just following what the
findings of facts state. Barbara stated, “Any change at all to the subdivision
approval, this is a change to the ‘conditions of approval’, those findings are
the conditions of approval. So, if we are changing a condition, then that is an
amendment.” She said even if it is not
on the plan it is still part of the approval. She added that typically we notify
the public of any change we make to a subdivision approval. Ann H. noted that
it said, ‘Finding of Facts to be amended’.
Roland L. said he withdrew his motion. Barbara F. stated he could bring it up at the
next meeting.
Roger A. stated the board will bring it up at the
next meeting. A public hearing will be
held at 7 p.m. and a notice to abutters will go out.
Nothing further was discussed. ------------------------------------
Amendment to Best Possible Location – Replace Existing
Structure – Change Date of Completion – Map 29, Lot 29 (43 Hickory
Street) – Ronald Cote Revocable Trust, Applicant Mr. Cote was present via Zoom for the review of
the application. Received along with the application, was a letter from the applicant, Ron
Cote, stating his reason for needing an extension was due to a delay in
obtaining his building plans, which he did not receive until March 20, 2020, thus
he would be unable to complete the project, including revegetation by April 30,
2020. Also received was a copy of the Finding of Facts for the Planning Board approval of the
original Best Possible Location application, which was approved on March 12,
2019; and a
copy of the original plan which depicted the distance from the existing
structure to the high water mark as 35.9 feet ±; the distance of the existing
structure to the centerline of Hickory Street is 64.7 feet at the closest
point; the distance to the lot line of Map 29, Lot 28 is 27.2 feet ±; and the
distance to the lot line of Map 29, Lot 30 is 35 feet ±. The plan also depicted
the distance from the proposed new
structure to the high-water mark as 75.9 feet and the distance to the
centerline of Hickory Street as 35.9 feet. The 30-foot minimum requirement for the side setbacks back is also
indicated on the plan and the existing and proposed structure meets the
requirement. Roger A. stated this application was for Mr.
Cote and it was for changing the date of completion. Mr. Cote stated that he said the reason he was
asking for an extension was they got approval for a best possible location and
because the building envelop was funky, the architect working to get the
building created was extremely slow. He
said it took 10 months to get the drawings from him. He said when he went to
get the building permits from the CEO, he realized it was best to get the
completion date extended. Roger A. asked Mr. Cote if the date of extension
that he was asking for was 4/30/2021? Mr. Cote stated, “Yes”. Roger said with a best possible location he had
no issue extending the date because most of it was due to the engineering being
delayed, and the correct placement, which was beyond Mr. Cote’s control.
Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2020 Page 15 of 20
Steve F. stated, This case brings up a good point
and it may be something the board should look at in the ordinance, functionally
how this process all goes, many times we don’t know exactly what they are going
to try to build, based on they don’t know what the board will approve”. He thought
it might be something at a workshop, that the board looks at the end user
situation vs how the board feels it should go. Roger A. said he had no
objection to that. He thought this might be the first time a BPL had to be adjusted
but there is no reason why the board can’t take a look at it and see if there
is a better way help get the applicant going and remove any roadblocks. Roland
L. asked CEO Demers if he saw any issues with the plan that Mr. Cote brought to
him, other than the fact the time had lapsed? CEO Demers stated there were no other issues except for the time frame.
Roland said, “Ok”. Roger
A. asked if there was a motion for extending the date of completion? Roland L. made the motion that the date of completion be extended until
4/30/2021. Madge B. 2nd the motion. All members voted in favor. By a
vote of 5 – 0, the motion was unanimous. Note: Steve F. abstained from the vote as he worked with the
applicant. Ann H. voted as a regular member. Nothing
further was discussed. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Findings of Facts
1. The owners of Shapleigh Tax Map 29, Lot 29
(43 Hickory Street), are Ronald H. Cote Revocable Trust & Patricia A. Ellis
Living Trust, of 5 Falls Lane, North Berwick, Maine 03906.
2. The property is located in the Shoreland
District and according to the assessor contains 0.52 acres. According to Joseph Stanley of LinePro Land
Surveying, PLS #2453, the property contains 23,297 ± square feet.
3. The applicant is before the board for an
amendment to the Best Possible Location to replace the existing structure.
4. Received
was a letter from the applicant, Ron Cote, stating his reason for needing an extension
was due to a delay in obtaining his building plans, which he did not receive
until March 20, 2020, thus he would be unable to complete the project,
including revegetation by April 30, 2020.
5. Received was a copy of the Finding of Facts for the Planning Board
approval of the original Best Possible Location application, which was approved
on March 12, 2019.
6. Received was a copy of
the original plan which depicted the
distance from the existing structure
to the high water mark as 35.9 feet ±; the distance of the existing structure
to the centerline of Hickory Street is 64.7 feet at the closest point; the
distance to the lot line of Map 29, Lot 28 is 27.2 feet ±; and the distance to
the lot line of Map 29, Lot 30 is 35 feet ±. The plan also depicted the
distance from the proposed new structure
to the high-water mark as 75.9 feet and the distance to the centerline of
Hickory Street as 35.9 feet. The 30-foot
minimum requirement for the side setbacks back is also indicated on the plan
and the existing and proposed structure meets the requirement.
Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2020 Page
16 of 20
7. The Planning Board unanimously agreed to
approve the amendment to the Best Possible Location to replace the existing
structure per the plans presented, approved on March 12, 2019, amending
Condition #1 as follows:
1) The date of completion for the project, including the
revegetation of all disturbed areas, shall be April 30, 2021. If this date cannot be met, the applicant
shall come back before the Planning Board to determine a new date of
completion.
8. The remaining
conditions of the approval shall remain as originally stated, they are as
follows:
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 demolition material from the
existing structure to be removed, shall be taken out of Shapleigh and disposed
of properly. 4) Placement of the new structure
shall be per the plans provided, the new structure shall be 75.9 feet at the
closest point from the high-water line and a minimum of 35.9 feet to centerline
of Hickory Street. 5) Per Zoning Ordinance §105-4, the
approved plan shall be confirmed in writing by a licensed surveyor that the
placement of the structure is correct per the specifications approved by the Planning
Board.
Motion:
After
careful consideration and a review of all material previously presented to the
Board, a motion was made to approve the amendment to
the Best Possible Location to replace and relocate the existing structure on
Tax Map 29, Lot 29, per the plan provided by Joseph Stanley, PLS #2453, dated
February 8, 2019, with an amendment to Condition #1 and with Conditions
#2 thru #5 remaining the same.
Vote:
By a unanimous vote of 4 – 0, the motion to approve the amendment
to the Best Possible Location to replace and relocate the existing structure on
Tax Map 29, Lot 29, per the plan provided by Joseph Stanley, PLS #2453, dated
February 8, 2019, with an amendment to Condition #1 and with Conditions
#2 thru #5 remaining the same, was accepted.
Decision:
The amendment to the Best Possible
Location to replace and relocate the existing structure on Tax Map 29, Lot 29,
per the plan provided by Joseph Stanley, PLS #2453, dated February 8, 2019, with
an amendment to Condition #1 and with Conditions #2 thru #5 remaining
the same, was approved.
---------------------------------------
Conditional Use Permit – Mineral Extraction (Original Approval in 2015
Expired) – Map 5, Lot 44A (Goose Pond Road) – Frank Clark II, Applicant Mr. Clark was present via Zoom for the review of his
application. Provided along with the application were the following: Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2020 Page 17 of 20
1) Site
Location Map 2) Map
depicting Map 5, Lot 44A including lot dimensions, along proposed conditions as
follows: • Hours of operation for gravel
extraction shall be 7:00 am through 5:00 pm, Monday thru Friday; 7:00 am thru
12:30 pm on Saturday. • There shall be no trucks
travelling over Goose Pond Road culvert, all gravel pit traffic shall exit left
onto Goose Pond Road and travel on State Route 109. • No excavation shall be within the
50 ft buffer strip of property lines and the depth shall be no lower than 530
ft. • A stone apron shall be constructed
to remove gravel and dust from the tires of the equipment used for hauling
gravel. • Dust shall be maintained through
use of water truck, watering the area as needed to prevent dust from going onto
neighboring properties. • No more than 5 acres shall be excavated
at one time or 10 acres cleared of trees. • Noise levels shall be obeyed per
the Town of Shapleigh Zoning Ordinance. • A surety bond shall be established
and maintained, payable to the Town of Shapleigh in the amount of $16,000.00
3) Site
Plan depicting where the entrance shall be located, that being 20’ x 150’, and
the 5-acre area for extraction.
4) Maine
Dept of Environmental Protection Notice of Intent to Comply, dated as signed
off on 8/6/2015.
5) Maine
Dept of Environmental Protection letter regarding Placard for Clark Pit,
Shapleigh (GPID #860), dated August 6, 2015, stating that the gravel pit is
licensed to the standards under the Performance Standards for Excavations, 38
M.R.S.A. §490-D.
6) State
of ME, Dept of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife letter, dated March 20, 2105,
stating that there are no locations of endangered, threatened, or special
concern species within the project area.
7) Mineral
Extraction Site Description – 20 Acres
8) Quitclaim
Deed, dated recorded at YCRD on June 25, 2015, Book 17043, Page 765, Frank
Clark to Frank W. Clark and Gloria S. Clark.
9) Proposed
Gravel Extraction Site Closure Plan, dated March 2020.
10) Clark
Parcel, Shapleigh Maine Test Pits, dated July 26, 2013, done by Civil
Consultants – A total of 14 test pit sites indicating the type and depth of
sand & gravel on site.
11) 2015
Findings of Facts from the Mineral Extraction Approval that was voted on September
22, 2015.
Detailed Description of the
Project: Materials on-site to be
excavated to elevation of 530 and trucked off-site. This is to occur in 5-acre
increments, so that no more than 5 acres are active. Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2020 Page 18 of 20
Note: Roland L. recused himself from
being a voting member. Ann H. will sit
in his place as a regular member.
Roger A. opened the review by asking
Mr. Clark to let the board know what he wanted to do.
Mr. Clark began by stating he was
before the board to try to get the mineral extraction approval again, it was
approved in 2015. He stated at that time
he did not have a lot of interest in the gravel but now the gas prices are
down, and a lot of gravel has been taken from other areas. He said he was not looking to change anything
from the original approval. He was
looking for all the same conditions the board voted on the last time. He stated
nothing that he is doing now has changed from that approval.
Mr. Clark stated that he realized
the board would need an updated reclamation estimate and he said he could get
that to the board by the next meeting. He
said if there was anything else the board needed, he would provide it.
Roger A. stated that after receiving
the information, he thought the board needed a new reclamation cost and letter
of credit for that. He stated other than that, the board would need to hold a
public hearing and notify all abutters. Roger stated that because it is a new
application, they had to start over because the original application expired
several years ago. Roger noted because it has expired it is a brand-new application.
Mr. Clark stated that he has kept up
with his DEP permits, they have been paid every year. He stated he was waiting for his licenses to
arrive. He was told the DEP mailed them twice
but he has not received them, therefore, he is probably going to go to Augusta
to get them.
Roger A. stated that he had spoken
with Mr. Clark who said a logger had gone in and cleared some of the area. He asked members if they wanted to go on a
site visit, he can set up a time for that. Mr. Clark stated that the loggers
came in and cleared what the State allowed and he is ready to stump it if he
gets approved by the board.
The board agreed to hold the site
visit prior to the next meeting, at 6:00 pm, a notice to abutters will be
mailed and a Public Hearing held at 7:00 pm. Madge B. reminded
Roger that members would be going back to their homes after. Mr. Clark asked if he had to be there. Roger said he did not, but it would be good
if he could answer questions. Mr. Clark stated that he may not be able to get
there until 6:15. Roger said that would be fine.
Mr. Clark ask if the board wanted
copies of emails from the DEP stating he is all set with them. Roger A. asked
if Mr. Clark thought he would have the permits for the next meeting. Mr. Clark stated he would have to call them.
Mr. Clark stated that he would have a new reclamation estimate and he will
print the emails from the DEP for the board.
Ann H. asked when the board would
get the surety bond. Mr. Clark thought the
board needed it within 90 days of approval. Barbara F. agreed and before he starts operating. Mr. Clark stated that
would not be a problem. Mr. Clark also stated that he believed he needed to
provide the bond, not the person digging the gravel. Roger A. agreed, stating it comes from the
landowner. Mr. Clark said that he understood.
Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2020 Page 19 of 20
Mr. Clark stated that he believed he
did not need the bond for the next meeting. Roger A. stated it would be good to have the cost estimate for reclamation
for the next meeting. Roger noted that there may be an inflation factor added
to the bond for the three-year period and that would be the amount of the bond.
Mr. Clark stated that he would work on having that figure for the next meeting.
Mr. Clark asked if the board members
had the conditions from the last approval. He said those were what he was asking for and looking to do for this
approval.
Mr. Clark stated at the last
approval there were some questions regarding crushing rock, and due to the noise,
some did not want crushing. He stated that rock crushing is part of mineral
extraction. Mr. Clark stated that the person taking the minerals will be doing
most of the crushing at his site, but he didn’t want to say he would not be doing
it. He wants this part of his permit approval.
Mr. Clark stated that he was
agreeable to all the terms and conditions of the last approval. There will be
no traffic over the Goose Pond bridge. He wanted to be sure the board knew what
he was asking for.
Ann H. asked if he was going to be doing
the stone apron? Mr. Clark stated, “Yes”. Mr. Clark noted that a water truck
was discussed to keep the dust down.
Mr. Clark noted that the board first
Zoom meeting went well.
Roger A. noted there were several people
other than the board members at the meeting. He asked if anyone had anything to say. Mr. Daniel Frasier spoke up stating he was an abutter to Mr. Clark’s property.
Mr. Frasier stated he was interested in what the conditions Mr. Clark was
speaking about were, being an abutter. Mr. Frasier asked Mr. Clark to get in touch
with him, as he wants to know more about the conditions of approval. Mr. Clark
stated he would get the conditions to Mr. Frasier as soon as possible.
Ann H. asked Roger A. if the board
would be going over the conditions at the next meeting. Roger stated that they would. Mr. Clark
stated he would still make sure Mr. Frasier gets them prior to the next
meeting. Mr. Frasier thanked the board and said he liked the zoom meeting.
Nothing further was discussed.
-------------------------------------
Growth Permits
Map 5, Lot 11 (White Tail Lane) –
New Home GP
#06-20 This is an approved lot within an
existing subdivision, meeting all the zoning requirements.
Map 8, Lot 34 (659 Ross Corner Road)
– New Home GP
#07-20 This lot exceeds the minimum lot
size requirements in the zoning ordinance.
Map 3, Part of Lot 44 (Coley Trafton
Road) – New Home GP #08-20 This lot meets the minimum lot size requirements
in the zoning ordinance. Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes – June 9, 2020 Page 20 of 20
Map 17, Lot 9A (30th
Street) - Multi-family (In-law Apt) GP
#09-20 This lot exceeds the minimum lot size
requirements for a multi-family dwelling in the zoning ordinance.
Map 1, Lot 43A (Songbird Lane) – New
Home GP
#10-20 This lot meets the minimum lot size requirements
in the zoning ordinance and is accessed by a deeded right-of-way.
************************
The Planning Board meeting ended at 8:40
p.m.
NOTE: The summer hours
are in effect, the meetings now begin at 7:30 p.m. and any scheduled public
hearing begins at 7:00 p.m. The next Planning
Board meeting scheduled will be via Zoom on Tuesday June 23, 2020 at 7:00
p.m. See the town website, www.shapleigh.net to obtain the link
details if you wish to attend. Look under Planning Board.
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, 207-636-2839, x4.
The next meeting date is to be
determined.
Respectfully
submitted, Barbara
Felong, Land Use Secretary
|
Planning Board
October 16, 2021 5:49 PM