Source: http://shapleigh.net/Planning.cfm?ID=427
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:25:46+00:00

Document:
Members in attendance: Roger Allaire (Chairman), Steve Foglio (Vice Chair), Madge Baker, Roland Legere, and Maggie Moody. Alternate Ann Harris was unable to attend. Code Enforcement Officer Mike Demers was also in attendance.
Minutes are not verbatim, unless in quotes “” – If the name of a citizen making a comment was not requested by the Planning Board Chairman, the reference to their name will be known as ‘Citizen’.
The minutes from Wednesday, February 27, 2019 were accepted as read.
The Planning Board meeting started at 6:30 p.m.
Joseph Stanley of LinePro was present for the review of the application.
Originally provided along with the application was an email, dated 2/11/2019, from Ron & Patricia Cote stating that LinePro Land Surveying would be representing them at the Planning Board meetings. Also provided was a plan drafted by Joseph Stanley, PLS #2453, entitled ‘Plan Showing a Proposed Building Location for Ronald H. Cote Revocable Trust & Patricia A. Ellis Living Trust, 5 Falls Lane, North Berwick, Maine, of Property Located on Hickory Street in Shapleigh, Maine’. Depicted on the plan is the footprint of both the existing house and proposed location, the location of Hickory Street & the existing driveway; the existing retaining wall; the location of the utility lines and setback to those; the location of existing trees and proposed stabilization plan which includes the location of blueberry/juniper bushes and bark mulch; and an existing shed, concrete area, deck and stairs toward the water. The plan stated the lot size is 23,297 square feet ±. The distance from the existing structure to the high water mark is indicated 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 distance from the proposed new structure to the high water mark is indicated as 75.9 feet and the distance to the centerline of Hickory Street is 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.
Board members did a site inspection prior to this evenings meeting.
Roger A. asked Mr. Stanley to let the board now what his client wanted to do. Mr. Stanley stated, “As a recap, now that members have seen the site, the current proposal to meet the best practical location is to slide the existing camp back as far as possible, before we hit the setback for the powerline easement”. He said that distance is moving the structure back approximately 40 feet.
Mr. Stanley stated that it puts the front of the new structure at the back of the overhang of the existing structure. He said based on what they viewed, at least 4 trees would be impacted. One on the corner, is in the vicinity of where the number 35.9 is depicted on the plan. He wasn’t sure if the tree can be saved or not.
Roger A. asked if there would be a full foundation? Mr. Stanley stated that was his assumption, but he usually tells his clients to put the brakes on what they visualize until the board approves a location. He stated that he believed they wanted single level living due to the fact they are getting older, and the owner is hoping the lot coverage calculations will allow for a small garage and workshop attached to a single level home.
Mr. Stanley noted the location of the stone retaining wall and where the 100 foot mark was from the high water line, stating that it ran thru the middle of the proposed new home.
Mr. Stanley stated that much of his work was based on an existing survey plan done by Middle Branch Land Surveyors. He said the boundaries used are from the Middle Branch plan. He said with respect to the road, Middle Branch depicted a gravel drive to the cottage and a separate gravel drive to the neighboring property. He said with the snow cover it is hard to depict where the travel way is.
A direct abutter, Mr. McArdle, stated that the shed on his property, used to belong to the applicants property. Another direct abutter, Mr. Stonemetz agreed. Mr. McArdle said the shed was part of this property, so there was a driveway by the shed that went to the applicant’s property. Mr. Stanley said there may be a situation that access was for convenience, whereas the actually travel way / deeded right-of-way may be in another location. He said the deeds he reviewed were not specific with respect to the location of the ROW, going back to at least the 1920’s. Mr. McArdle did not disagree. He said the issue is the person who used to own the applicants property, he let her cut through his property because she was an elder and was used to going this way.
Mr. Stanley said the existing plan done by Middle Branch was what he used to create the right-of-way for this plan. Mr. McArdle asked where the driveway for his applicant would be located? Mr. Stanley stated he would not know until the building is designed. He said they were before the board just to get the location, meeting the dimensional requirements of the property as best possible. He believed the existing loop was used out of convenience, but may not be the ROW.
Mr. McArdle stated he never used the loop because he entered his house prior to the loop. Mr. Stanley asked Mr. Stonemetz if he used the loop, and he stated that he had in the past and noted the previous owners preferred to drive through Mr. McArdle’s property. Mr. Stonemetz stated that he agreed there was no way to prove where the actual location of the ROW was because the deeds were not specific. The deeds say ‘the roadway as laid out’. Mr. Stonemetz had a copy of the Town’s Tax Map from the 1970’s. Mr. Stonemetz was concerned with emergency vehicles, he believed traveling over Mr. McArdle’s property was an easier travel way. He was also concerned with blocking it off forever. Mr. McArdle stated that the only people using it would theoretically be Mr. Stonemetz and the applicants. He added that putting the house in this new location could benefit him, because the road being used now is a safety issue, because when children are playing in his yard, literally vehicles cross thru the middle of his property, they drive by the picnic table.
the 1960’s and 1970’s but he could not depict anything due to the trees. He also looked at old survey notes and couldn’t find any information. After his research he could not find anything definitive. Mr. Stanley noted that he did not see in any of his research a loop, he felt the loop was done out of convenience, but he could not tell the board he was 100% correct or that the location of the road was as he depicted. Mr. McArdle said that if the shed was part of the applicant’s property, they could have parked on his property and walked to their house. Mr. Stanley did not disagree. Madge B. stated that the Planning Board could not straighten this situation out.
Roger A. asked if the abutter’s had access from Ivy Street? They both said, no. Roger said that on the Town Map it showed they had access. Mr. Stonemetz stated he believed CMP has access through Ivy but there is no roadway where it shows there is one on the map.
Steve F. asked if relocating this house where proposed would impact the back of the ROW, besides the fact that now there will be two-way traffic? Mr. Stanley said in this situation, believing the deeded rights run across the back, moving the structure straight back, there is a distance of 35.9 feet to the ROW.
Roland L. stated that assuming the applicant is able to place the structure as on the plan, they would then not be using the other roadway at all, correct, the continuation through Mr. McArdle’s property. Mr. Stanley thought as the surveyor, they would come off what he perceived was the ROW on the back of the property. Roland stated he was asking, because it was noted there is a possibility of wanting a garage, so he was wondering if the applicants thought the shortest distance between two points would be across the McArdle property, over the hill, instead of around and to the garage. Mr. McArdle stated that was why he asked where the driveway was. Roland wanted to know where the driveway was going to be, and he would like to hear from the abutter’s, specifically if they are opposed to the plan, or do they have a specific reservation or concern.
Madge B. said that the Planning Board cannot solve their problems. Roland L. said he understood that, but he thought visually he wished there wasn’t snow, so the board could see if there was a well-traveled path or not. He said walking on snow they could not. Madge said if it is not deeded, the board has no reason to pay attention to it. Roland would like the applicant to know they have no right to travel over the neighbor’s property. Mr. McArdle said the area between his house and the applicant’s property is all grass. He said he let the neighbors use that area next to the shed to back trailers in for a boat launch. But again he said it is grass. Mr. Stonemetz said in the past it was gravel. Mr. McArdle did not disagree but noted it has not been used as a travel way for a long time.
Mr. McArdle stated that he had grave concerns with what the building will look like. He stated that he could see the footprint and had no issues, but the issue is with the calculations for the expansion. Madge B. stated that the CEO does those, the board has nothing to do with that. Mr. Stanley stated that he was before the board just to get approval for the setbacks.
children getting hurt, whereas using the other access, it is literally through the middle of his property. Mr. McArdle stated that what Mr. Stanley depicted as the ROW would be the preferred ROW.
Madge B. stated that Mr. Stanley’s proposal does not impact the deeded ROW, so she believed the board could act on it, then let the property owners figure it out. She added that it was none of the board’s business. Steve F. stated that he agreed. Madge understood that the board should listen to what the abutter’s have to say, and she believed the board did that. She felt now the board needs to decide if the plan depicts the best possible location for a non-conforming structure.
Madge B. added that the board is not to solve property issues. Roland L. stated that he did not feel the board was supposed to create a problem for someone else. He said he would like to know where the parking area was going to be located. Madge said that was their problem, not the board’s problem. She stated that the applicant’s had to figure out how to put the cars on their lot. She said the board does not normally ask people where they were going to put their cars. Roland did not entirely agree.
Roger A. stated that he asked Mr. Stanley about the deeded access, and if there isn’t deeded access across Mr. McArdle’s property, then they should use what is noted on the plan. It is up to the applicant’s how they will access their site, but he didn’t feel the board should encourage someone to trespass across someone else’s property. Roger said if Mr. Stonemetz feels he wants to continue to use the access through Mr. McArdle’s property, it will be a civil matter, the board cannot dictate where the ROW is. Mr. Stonemetz stated that he did not have to continue to use it, his concern was with respect to emergency vehicles and he said it was a shock to change which road is being used. He said again it was just a concern, because he understood he had no legal document that states it was deeded in any particular configuration.
Madge B. asked if the board can discuss the safety issue when dealing with the best possible location? She said she wanted to look at the best possible location requirements. Roger A. stated that he felt the best possible location as presented was fine. Steve F. stated that he didn’t see a better possibility, unless the board moves them back closer to the lake, which is counterintuitive. Maggie M. asked how far the proposed structure was from the side lot line? Maggie thought there was a lot of space between the side lot line and the new structure. Roger A. did not agree, because he felt the new septic system would be going between the new structure and Mr. McArdle’s property. Steve noted they meet the shoreland side setbacks.
Madge B. stated she understood what Maggie M. was getting at, should the board not only move it back but shift the structure closer to Mr. McArdle’s property to make room for parking and easier access. Madge said she also understood Roger’s thought about the septic system location, because then they would not have to have a pump up system. She asked if the septic system had to go behind the 100 foot setback to the water? Roger said because it’s in the Shoreland, it will get a variance. She said not if it is more than 100 feet back. She wondered if they could put it back beyond the 100 foot mark. Roger didn’t think it was best, due to the slope of the land. Roger said that would be up to CEO Demers. Madge said Maggie’s point of view is there would be more room for a garage if the structure was shifted. Madge said if the board approves this location, there is nothing that prevents the applicant from coming back with a plan for a better location, once a septic location is established.
Steve F. said the applicant meets the side setbacks. He said the board is only looking at the variance from the water and the road. Madge B. stated she understood that but she was talking about shifting the structure, but Steve is saying the side setbacks are met, so they don’t necessarily have to come back to the board. Steve said the board can’t pin them down for setbacks that can be met.
Madge B. believed the board was ready to discuss whether or not the setbacks as presented met the criteria in the ordinance; she began by looking at §105-4.D(5) ‘Removal, reconstruction or replacement’, which allows the Planning Board to consider the location as to whether or not the replacement location meets the setbacks to the greatest practical extent.
Roger A. began by reviewing §105-4.D(5)(a) which reads in part, ‘In no case shall the structure be reconstructed or replaced so as to increase its nonconformity’. Roger believed the proposed location put the new structure more in conformity with the required setbacks but noted it could not meet the setback to the road or water, even with the move. Roger continued to read this section, ‘it shall not be any larger than the original structure, except as allowed pursuant to Subsection D(1)’. Roger noted that this section the Planning Board did not look at, as it pertains to the actual expansion calculations. Roger said the board looks at the footprint of the original structure only, and is moving that footprint to the best possible location. Mr. McArdle asked if the size of the expansion had been calculated? Mr. Stanley said, “No, this is a tracing of the existing building, slid back, there is no change. So they vote on setbacks and then it’s my job to be sure they meet the lot coverage and everything else”.
Roger A. said it was the camp today, slid back. Mr. McArdle said, “I get it, but adding 30% to that changes the look of that whole thing”. He said he understood where it was going but it was going to get bigger. Roger said legally he was bound to only look at it this way. Mr. McArdle noted that he had to look at it, like another abutting structure that had a dramatic change. Mr. Stanley stated that he believed his clients were planning on doing a single story structure. He said it can’t be any wider front to back as the existing structure, but it could move closer to the side lots lines as the structure meets that criteria. Mr. McArdle said he wasn’t upset with the new location, only how the final structure might look. He said he was misunderstanding the process but now he understands what they are explaining. Roger said several years ago the board looked at it differently but the DEP came in and explained to the board they cannot look at the 30%. Roger said the DEP told the board they can only move the existing structure back and then the CEO looks at the expansion. Roger said the board wanted to view the whole thing but they are unable to do so.
Mr. Stanley said the current structures on the lot cover about 7% of the lot, what will hold back a big expansion is lot coverage which is maxed out at 10%. He said this is a small lot, so at 30% there is a limiting factor. Mr. McArdle said, “But they can go up”. Madge B. stated that they only want a single story. Mr. Stanley stated that he cannot guarantee that. Mr. McArdle stated that was what his other neighbor stated, was that she only wanted a single story and it did not happen. Mr. McArdle said she was going to add one room and she got a second story.
requirements of state law and the State of Maine Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Rules, or that a new system can be installed in compliance with the law and said rules. In no case shall a structure be relocated in a manner that causes the structure to be more nonconforming’. Roger believed due to there being a distance between the structure and side lot line, a site evaluator could design a system to fit.
 Trees, woody vegetation and ground cover.
[a] Trees removed in order to relocate a structure must be replanted with at least one native tree, six (6) feet in height, measured from the base of the trunk to the top of the tree, for every tree removed. If more than five trees are planted, no one species of tree shall make up more than 50% of the number of trees planted. Replaced trees must be planted no further from the water or wetland than the trees that were removed. Trees shall be planted greater than five feet from the side lot lines, and shall create a well-distributed stand of trees.
Roger A. stated that any trees planted cannot be any closer than six feet from any lot line.
[b] Other woody and herbaceous vegetation, and ground cover, that is removed or destroyed in order to relocate a structure must be re-established. An area at least the same size as the area where vegetation and/or ground cover was disturbed, damaged, or removed must be established within the setback area. The vegetation and/or ground cover must consist of similar native vegetation and/or ground cover that was disturbed, destroyed or removed.
 Where feasible, when a structure is relocated on a parcel the original location of the structure shall be replanted with vegetation which may consist of grasses, shrubs, trees, or a combination thereof.
(c) All approved plans shall require confirmation in writing by a licensed surveyor that the placement of the structure is correct per the specifications approved by the Planning Board.
ordinance is concerned to not have a lot of exposed soil for erosion. Mr. Stanley said he knew the board would be bringing up best management practices. Roger said yes, “BMP”.
Roland L. added that all the debris would have to be taken out of town. Roger A. agreed. Roland stated that it would be appreciated if Mr. Stanley would make an effort to save the large oak on the corner. Mr.
Stanley said, “Absolutely. Once we see the final design and know the lot coverage”. He agreed it would be nice to save the oak tree. He added that he didn’t think they wanted more living space, just adding a garage or workshop and parking area.
Roger A. stated the placement of the structure as per the plan. Madge B. said, “With respect to the setback”. Steve F. stated it was 35.9 feet from Hickory Street and 75.9 feet from the high water line.
Roland L. said for the record, the applicant will not approach the building from the far side? Madge B. did not believe it was up to the board to determine. She felt it was between the applicants and the abutters. Madge thought the approval should say 35.9 or greater, in case the house is moved toward the opposite lot line. Steve agreed 35.9 minimum to Hickory Street.
1) The date of completion for the project, including the revegetation of all disturbed areas, shall be April 30, 2020. If this date cannot be met, the applicant shall come back before the Planning Board to determine a new date of completion.
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.
Madge B. made the motion for approval of the Best Practical Location to replace the existing structure on Map 29, Lot 29, 43 Hickory Street, with the conditions enumerated. Maggie M. 2nd the motion. All voting members were in favor. By a vote of 4 – 0 the motion passed unanimously.
Note: Steve F. abstained from the vote, as the applicant is someone that works at his Real Estate Office, and he did not want there to be a perception of a conflict of interest.
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 a Best Possible Location to replace the existing structure.
4. Received was an email, dated 2/11/2019, from Ron & Patricia Cote stating that LinePro Land Surveying would be representing them at the Planning Board meetings.
5. Received was a plan drafted by Joseph Stanley, PLS #2453, entitled ‘Plan Showing a Proposed Building Location for Ronald H. Cote Revocable Trust & Patricia A. Ellis Living Trust, 5 Falls Lane, North Berwick, Maine, of Property Located on Hickory Street in Shapleigh, Maine’. Depicted on the plan is the footprint of both the existing house and proposed location, the location of Hickory Street & the existing driveway; the existing retaining wall; the location of the utility lines and setback to those; the location of existing trees and proposed stabilization plan which includes the location of blueberry/juniper bushes and bark mulch; and an existing shed, concrete area, deck and stairs toward the water.
6. The plan received 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 ±.
7. The plan received 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.
8. The board reviewed Zoning Ordinance §105-4, ‘Nonconformance’, and concurred the application and information as presented met the standards applicable in this chapter.
9. A notice was mailed to all abutters within 500 feet of the property on February 28, 2019. Meetings were held on Wednesday, February 27, 2019 and Tuesday, March 12, 2019.
After careful consideration and a review of all material presented to the Board, including the review of Zoning Ordinance §105-4, ‘Nonconformance’, a motion was made to approve 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 five conditions.
By a unanimous vote of 4 – 0, the motion to approve 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 five conditions, was accepted.
The Best Possible Location application 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 five conditions was approved.
Note: Per Shapleigh Zoning Ordinance §105-4.D(1)(d), the approved plan must be recorded with the registry of deeds, within 90 days of approval, or the application shall be null and void. The recorded plan must show the existing and proposed footprint of the non-conforming structure, the existing and proposed structure height, the footprint of any other structures on the parcel, the shoreland zone boundary and evidence of approval.
Roger A. read a letter from Mr. James McArdle, who was an audience member this evening, regarding an abutting property to his, which received approval for a 30% expansion to add a 12 x 20 addition. The property is located at Map 29, Lot 66. Mr. McArdle believed the structure was not expanded correctly, and it resulted in not only the 12 x 20 addition but also an increase in height of the original structure, which now is obstructing the view to the water from his property. He felt the expansion was now more like 67% vs 30% in volume.
several areas of suggested improvements with respect to roof improvement or enhancement to mitigate a negative impact on surrounding properties.
The letter in it’s entirely can be read at the Town Hall during regular office hours. Both the Town Administrator and Land Use Secretary have a copy.
Roger A. added that the 30% calculations are up to the CEO. Steve F. noted that volume isn’t even calculated anymore. Roger felt it was much easier when the board could look at both the placement and the expansion, as it gave a better idea of what would work best on the lot.
Madge B. wanted to discuss one other item with the board. She said at the last meeting the board briefly discussed an issue, because she was concerned about being handed a deed to read at a meeting and not having enough time to process what she was reading; she wanted the board in the future, and this was her motion, that when the Planning Board requests additional information for a subsequent meeting, for a permit, the Planning Board may ask the applicant to submit the material by mail 7 days ahead of the meeting. She said again, that was her motion.
Madge B. said it would enable the board to get the material ahead of the meeting, if the board believed it would be helpful to get the information ahead of the next meeting for consideration. She said, “It doesn’t say they have to, but if it’s a case of a deed, it means I could say I would really like the deed before the meeting”.
Steve F. asked if the board had to change the ordinance? Madge B. stated no, but she wanted to change it as an agreed upon policy or procedure. Steve asked where it would have to go in the future? Madge stated that eventually it can go into the ordinance but she didn’t have to put it in the book right now. She asked the board members if they would accept it as a procedural preference, enforcement no. Steve stated he would say he would like to have it 3 calendar days prior to the next meeting received by us, or if you want to, say mailed by 7 days. He felt the issue was the timing. Madge agreed. Steve stated that as an applicant, when you leave here, you hit the ground running Wednesday, you don’t have a lot of time. Madge understood that. She said she was open to something else, but she said her mail often takes a long time to be received.
Madge B. said that by having the word ‘may’ instead of ‘shall’, whether it was a planting plan or whatever, or a deed, that it’s may, so it can be requested ahead and the applicant can say they really can’t meet that. The applicant may ask if the board would consider something else, it opens the dialogue but would give the board something to stand on. Steve F. thought it was a good idea.
currently, in her opinion. She was trying to make the board more conscious of the need that at times the information needs to be reviewed prior to the meeting.
Madge B. made the motion that when the Planning Board requests additional information for a subsequent meeting during the review of a permit, the Planning Board may ask the applicant to submit the material by mail 7 days ahead of the following meeting to allow for more time to adequately review the information. Maggie M. 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. By a vote of 5 – 0, the motion passed unanimously.
There are growth permits available.
The Planning Board meeting ended at 7:30 p.m.
NOTE: The winter hours are in effect thru March 31st, the meetings now begin at 6:30 p.m. and any scheduled public hearing begins at 6:00 p.m.
The next meeting will be held Tuesday, March 26, 2019 at 6:30 p.m.
The Planning Board meets the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month unless it falls on a holiday or Election Day. Should there be a cancellation due to a storm event, holiday or Election, the meeting will typically be held the following Wednesday, also at 6:30 p.m. Please contact the Land Use Secretary if there is a question in scheduling, 207-636-2844, x404.

References: §105
 §105
 §105
 §105
 §105
 §105