Source: http://shapleigh.net/Planning.cfm?ID=421
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:22:43+00:00

Document:
Members in attendance: Roger Allaire (Chairman), Steve Foglio (Vice Chairman), Madge Baker, Roland Legere, Maggie Moody and Alternate Ann Harris. Code Enforcement Officer Mike Demers was also in attendance. Note: Ann Harris sat in as a regular member for the review of the Conditional Use Permit on Map 18, Lot 30, as Steve Foglio has a monetary interest in the property, and therefore is not a voting member.
Public Hearing Began at 6:05 p.m.
Mr. Cochrane and Mr. Day were present for the public hearing.
Roger A. asked Mr. Cochrane to let the board and audience know what he intended to do. Mr. Cochrane asked if the abutter’s received a copy of the minutes from the last planning board meeting? Roger stated that no, the minutes would not be approved until this evening, the abutter’s only received a notice that a public hearing on the application was being held this evening.
Mr. Cochrane stated that he started Honest Cords Firewood 3 years ago, prior to that he was a logger working 60 plus hours a week which didn’t leave a lot of time to spend with young children and family. So he and his wife decided to try to do the cord wood business full time, and as of September 2018 he was doing it full time in Alfred, but has outgrown that location and has been searching for another property to better serve his needs. He said that when this property came on the market he thought it was perfect, and the access to the site is perfect.
Mr. Cochrane wasn’t sure if the abutter’s received the hours of operation, it was discussed at the last planning board meeting. He said they were trying to be reasonable, asking for 7 days a week, 8 am to 5 pm. He said he didn’t plan on working 7 days a week but often he had to fix equipment and he wanted to be able to do so as needed. He said that typically he works 4 to 5 days a week, noting he did not work 7 days a week at this time. He said equipment would not be running 7 days a week.
Mr. Cochrane said that they just bought a house in Shapleigh, not far from this location. He stated that he was going into this with his wife’s father; his father-in-law was actually purchasing the property.
property line; he felt with the existing vegetation and distance, the noise was not going to be an issue based on this reading. He added that he wanted to work with the neighbors, and it is also the mantra of his business, to provide honesty and keep the customers happy. He said to date, doing that, he has been very successful.
Mr. Cochrane said the site access is near the old sawmill, and he thought it was great that the location was originally built to process lumber. He said that he has looked into possibly preserving some of the old mill. He said that they noticed there were 2 sections that were added on to the original mill, those sections are dilapidated and probably will be removed. He hoped he could preserve the main building and perhaps use it to do basic carpentry in the future. He said they would like the piece of history preserved.
Roger A. asked if there were any questions?
1st Citizen – My only concern is the 7 days-a-week operation. I wish him all the best but I do have a concern about 7 days a week. I have no issues with him as a neighbor, and fixing equipment on the weekend is not an issue. I own a repair business, so I know there can be problems. But if he gets a permit to run the business 7 days a week, down the road if this turns into a huge operation, I am going to be listening to that 7 days a week and I don’t want to do that.
2nd Citizen – I feel the same, 5 days a week. I lived in this area for almost 50 years and I don’t need the noise 7 days a week. My wife and I are getting up in age and we need 2 days of quiet.
Roland L. – Could I ask you where in relation to the project do you reside?
2nd Citizen – Do you know Stanley’s old place? We are moving to the house next door in the spring. We wanted a smaller house and peace and quiet. Noise level is a concern.
1st Citizen – I own a business on the same road, noise is also an issue. I work from 8 to 5, no air guns before 8 or after 5. I try to be as respectful to the neighbors as much as possible. If I work on my own stuff on Saturdays or Sundays I work inside with the doors down because I don’t want to bother the neighbors. It has worked pretty good for 14 years. He is proposing to do the exact same thing, work from 8 to 5, it is his business, I get it. For me I would like at least one day a week that I don’t have to hear the noise.
3rd Citizen – The lot that you purchased, is that Lot 12 on the map?
3rd Citizen – I am lot 11A and I noticed there has been activity and survey tape put up on the property, what are your intentions for the rest of the property?
Mr. Cochrane – I am assuming if you walked onto the property, you are looking at the left.
3rd Citizen – Yes, and the middle.
Mr. Cochrane – That area right there is wetland, so we are not planning on doing anything.
3rd Citizen – What are you doing near Grant Road?
Mr. Cochrane – Can I show him using the map?
The board had no issue with him speaking about his plans. The Citizen was concerned with the property being divided.
Mr. Day – I am subdividing a piece of property for Tim (Mr. Cochrane), and keeping the rest for myself.
3rd Citizen – What are the plans for the rest of the property, the piece next to mine?
Mr. Day – There aren’t any plans for that piece.
3rd Citizen – So are you just going to cut it?
Mr. Day & Mr. Cochrane – It’s been cut.
3rd Citizen – So what are the ribbons?
Realtor – I am the Realtor that sold the property. That land was surveyed in 2011 by the Stanley family and the lines have been there since 2011. We just asked the surveyor to flag the lines, and make sure the pins are there. You may have seen activity but no lines have changed since 2011. Nothing has changed at all.
Mr. Day – I am going to be building a house off of Grant Road, there is not going to be any other division.
3rd Citizen – Where are you going to be building?
Mr. Day – Right on the curve, there is 291 feet of frontage there and 300 feet on the road.
Road Commissioner John Burnell – It’s not my end of town, but as an f.y.i., these roads will be posted in the spring.
Mr. Cochrane – We are aware and there will be no trucks showing up during that time. We are planning the deliveries around the postings. The deliveries will be planned around the summer, fall and winter. We totally understand that and have discussed those issues. We appreciate you bringing it up.
Roger A. asked if there were any other questions?
2nd Citizen – Are you going to be planting anything for a noise buffer?
Mr. Cochrane – Yes, we were planning on planting hedges for an additional noise buffer.
Madge B. – The board needs to have the site distances for the record. I believe they are adequate but I would like them in the record.
Madge used the plans provided to calculate the site distances and stated that it appeared in both directions the minimum and maximum site distances could be met. The other board members agreed.
Citizen – Is the board going to vote on it?
Roger A. – Yes, this will be brought back up at the regular meeting. The Public Hearing is for public input but at the regular meeting the public doesn’t have much input.
Madge B. – You are welcome to stay.
Roger A. – If there are other questions the board can clarify, if not, I am going to close the public hearing.
There were no other questions.
The public hearing closed at 6:20 p.m.
The minutes from Tuesday, January 8, 2019 were accepted as read.
Madge B. stated, “We did not I believe do that. I would like to make a motion at this point that Steve Foglio step off the board for our discussions of the Letourneau application. Do I have a second?” Maggie M. 2nd the motion.
Roland L. asked, “Would that be necessary if the board member recused themself or would you still have to go through the same procedure”. Madge B. stated, “I don’t have a strong view about that, as long as the record clearly shows that the member has stepped away. But in this case I don’t think the record has shown that to date”.
Madge B. stated, “I don’t like anyone sitting in front at the table. The physical location”. Ann H. stated, “Gotcha”. Madge B. said, “Because I think it’s confusing to people attending the meeting. I am not saying we did anything awful, and we haven’t made any decisions. What happens is, if someone miscounted the quorum, the votes, that decision can be challenged, but we haven’t done that. I just would like us to have a clear record and I would personally prefer that whoever has a conflict not sit up here, because I find that confusing”.
Maggie M. thought if you recused yourself that covers it. Madge B. agreed, and stated that not too long ago she recused herself, we hadn’t had a vote, so it was in the record, and I sat away from the table. Ann H. stated that she had gone to the meetings about Planning Boards, and the attorney’s that run the meetings say that some towns have them go out of the room. Madge said that the Chairman can control the meeting, but if he has a problem, then he should ask the person to leave the room. Madge said that as board members, if we think the board member is over-stepping or making us uncomfortable then we certainly can ask Roger to have the person leave. She asked if this made sense? Board members said that it did.
Roger A. asked if he could have a vote by the board? The board members voted 5 – 0, in favor of the motion to have Steve Foglio step down as a member for the review of the Letourneau application.
discussed between Steve and himself. Tonight Madge B. felt it was best that the whole board make the decision and that it be in the record. Roland L. stated that the secondary benefit to this is that in the future the board will know how to proceed.
Steve F. asked the board members if they had an issue with him answering questions based on this application? No one had an issue with it.
Mary Letourneau was present for the review of the application, along with her husband.
Provided along with the application, was a letter from property owner Paul Letourneau stating Mary Letourneau had permission to move forward with the conditional use permit; a sketch plan depicting the existing structure, septic & leachfield location, and arrows depicting how the traffic will flow on the property; a sketch plan depicting the existing structure and driveway on the property; an aerial photo of the property; an aerial photo of the property including distances from the existing structure to the side lot lines and Emery Mills Road; Subsurface Waste Water Disposal System Application for a 3 bedroom home, drafted by John E. Large, SE #7, dated 11/4/11; and a copy of the Purchase & Sale Agreement between Mary Letourneau and Paul Letourneau with an Offer Date of October 29, 2018.
The following is a description of the proposed project for moving Keeping’ it Local from its current location at 120 Emery Mills Road to 130 Emery Mills Road.
We would also be looking to add in beer, wine and liquor and to expand on our menu to include dinners and brunches.
Operating hours would ‘be’ up to 24 hours depending on baking.
Serving hours would be between 5 am and 11 pm.
Route 109, and the proposed expansion of the existing structure. Also depicted were 33 parking places, and how the traffic will flow, including a separate lane for drive-thru traffic.
The Planning Board had requested that Mrs. Letourneau get MDOT approval for the entrance onto Route 109 (Emery Mills Road). In an email to the PB dated December 11, 2018 at 11:27 AM from Anthony Fontaine of the MDOT, it stated the proposal for two separate access points is acceptable. He stated that the property owner, Mr. Paul Letourneau, requested that the access be 24 feet in width and this was acceptable to the department. Mr. Fontaine also stated that having an entry and exit onto Route 109 was acceptable. He concluded with the following: Because everything meets or exceeds the minimum standard for a major collector highway, further review by others here at MaineDOT is not required and I will issue the permit as proposed (two separate access points, one for entry and one for exit, each 24’ wide). The town is free to impose their own requirements but the proposal satisfies state statutes.
Pursuant to the pending application to the Planning Board by “Keepin It Local” for a new facility at 130 Emery Mills Road, the following information is presented regarding stormwater runoff.
The new Keepin It Local facility will construct additional building area to the current residential structure at 130 Emery Mills Road. New parking spaces and traffic circulation will also be added, resulting in approximately 16,000 SF of new impervious surface. Pre-development stormwater runoff drains to the SE corner, to Rte. 109. It continues to flow easterly for approximately 120 feet along the Rte. 109 side swale, to an 18” CMP cross culvert. An existing low detention area is present at the inlet of the culvert. Runoff flows through the culvert, then continues along a wooded swale and discharges to Lower Mousam Lake.
Post-development runoff will flow in the same direction as pre-development. A new Stone Level Spreader will be installed at the SE corner of the parcel to control the increase in runoff from the new impervious surfaces and to reduce the potential for erosion of the existing Rte. 109 swale and abutting properties. This spreader will limit runoff energy and velocity to match existing conditions.
In conclusion, construction of the new Keepin It Local facility will result in no negative impacts due to stormwater runoff to downstream properties, tributaries, or Mousam Lake.
Provided along with the letter from Mr. Beal were two (2) - 11 x 17” prints entitled Keepin it Local - Proposed Improvements – Drainage Study – 130 Emery Mills Road, Shapleigh Maine’. Print D1 noted the following, “Work performed by Carl V. Beal is limited to stormwater drainage only. Survey information was provided by LinePro Land Surveying, LLC”. Print D2 noted the following, “Work performed by Carl V. Beal is limited to stormwater drainage only. Building addition, new parking and traffic pattern, and other improvements were provided by others”.
Mary Letourneau has asked us to consider a privacy screen along our shared property line (138 & 135 Emery Mills Road). Donna and I have discussed various options and decided a line of arborvitae would be most acceptable. Options such as flowering shrubs would require more maintenance, primarily pruning to keep them from spreading, without the degree of screening provided by arborvitae. A fence, to provide adequate screening would need to be fairly tall.
There is another consideration to this application we wish to bring to your attention. When the septic system currently serving the property was installed a few years ago, the grade was change so that runoff from rain & snow-melt now comes to my property, rather than to the ditch along Route 109 (Emery Mills Road) as it previously did. I was assured during the final grading that this would not happen. Currently, there is a grass buffer strip, and the area is mostly lawn. However, we understand the anticipated parking area will abut our property. Whether paved or compacted gravel, the absorption factor will be practically non-existent compared to lawn. We prefer the parking area be engineered with proper grading and/or necessary drainage structures to direct runoff to the roadside ditch without crossing our lawn.
Thank you for this opportunity to express our thoughts on this application. We look forward to welcoming our new neighbor.
It has recently been brought to my attention that an existing residential property, located at the address indicated above, is having the use of the property changed from residential to commercial.
2) A sprinkler be installed.
Repairs and maintenance of the sprinkler system shall be the responsibility of the property owner. The Shapleigh Fire Department will check the water level of the cistern at their discretion and add water if necessary. Please have the applicant contact me with their decision.
Roger A. read both the letter from the Ruopp’s and Fire Chief Romano during the review of the application for Mrs. Letourneau. Roger also noted the new information submitted for the level spreader and planting plan.
Ann H. asked about the level spreader and where the water runoff is going to go, she wanted to know if the water is going to the same area that the letter from the Ruopp’s requested? Steve F. stated, “Correct”.
Ann H. asked if the application was approved this evening, if the revegetation would be accomplished by September 1st? Steve F. stated that the arborvitae can be planted at any time. Ann stated she was referring to the information provided on the Level Spreader which included construction standards, and it noted that the revegetation plan should be limited to the growing season and done before September 1st. Mr. Letourneau stated that the information she was referring to was just generic information from the State. Ann said that was fine, she just wanted to be sure it wasn’t specific to this application.
Ann H. stated, “I in the letter, is the Fire Department looking at life safety or fire protection, it didn’t say that in the letter”. Ann stated that if they are looking at life safety, they are probably looking to see that no one gets burned. If they are looking at fire suppression over the cooking area, they just don’t want a fire. Steve F. stated it didn’t say, it just says it was because they were switching from residential to a commercial structure. Ann asked if that could be determined. Steve said the only other sprinklers he could think of was in subdivision, but that is residential. Ann thought it was for life safety.
Madge B. asked what fire suppression was? Ann H. stated it was like a UL System, you go into a cooking area, there is a hood that squirts the water over the cooking area. If they are looking for life safety, which is starting to be a big deal in Maine, then they would want sprinklers everywhere in case somebody couldn’t get out if there was a fire. Ann said it was two different systems. She said the letter doesn’t say why they are saying what they are saying. Do they want fire safety or life safety? She asked if there was a way to determine what they are looking for? Roger A. read Fire Chief Romano’s letter at this point (see above).
Ann H. asked if the Fire Chief was just wanting to be sure the well on the property was big enough to operate a sprinkler system? Ann thought the letter was vague. Steve F. stated that it is in our ordinance to be sure the water supply was adequate. Ann asked if this was for a sprinkler system. Roger A. said that because it is a cooking area, the State will require fire suppression over the cooking area. He said with respect to the rest of the building, if the Fire Marshall determines because of the number of people they need more protection for the building itself, then that will need to be done. Roger said it could be what the Fire Chief is asking for or the State may be less restrictive.
Madge B. asked about what an insurance company would want. It was stated that it was the applicant’s problem. Roger A. again stated that when Mr. Hannon’s restaurant was approved, the board required a 20,000 gallon cistern that Mr. Hannon paid for. He said it got installed and Mr. Hannon also gave the town money to keep it in working order. Roger said the town has used it and the Fire Department keeps it full of water. Madge stated that it was in a great location, because there isn’t anything else in that area. Roger thought the cistern was required for not just the size of the building, but the number of people who would be in the building.
Mrs. Letourneau stated that she had to fill out an application for the State Fire Marshall’s office, and then he will come to the site when he receives it. Ann H. thought they would only need fire suppression in the kitchen if they were frying. Mrs. Letourneau stated that she may be frying.
Roland L. asked if the State Fire Marshall overruled the local government? Roger A. stated whoever is more stringent applies. He noted that the Town had home rule.
Madge B. asked how the board would know who would be more stringent? Roger A. stated the board would not know until the State Fire Marshall had a decision. Ann H. asked if that goes to Code Enforcement, not us? Steve F. stated that there are other avenues that cover this, so it makes sense to let those play out. Ann said that means let the Code Enforcer let it play out for whatever is needed. Steve said, “Exactly”. Roger stated that in order to get the OC Permit they will need all the criteria in place. CEO Demers stated, “That goes to Ken Paul anyway”. Roger agreed, saying that our CEO could not do anything with this application because it is a conflict of interest (CEO Demers is Mrs. Letourneau’s brother), so he has to get the Deputy CEO.
Madge B. said when we look at our standards, §105-73.G (10) states ‘There is adequate water supply to meet the demands of the proposed use, and for fire protection purposes’, She asked, “How do we know we can say there is?” Roger A. stated that the board does not know how many gallons are in the well at the present time. Madge asked how the board could act on this yet? Ann H. agreed, because the board did not know.
into the ground. He asked Madge if she was asking for a copy of the new design? Madge said she would like more than what they have now, to be able to vote that the standard has been met. Just as she felt she needed more information that the water supply standard has been met. Steve said he didn’t disagree with her, but he said he knew a State certified soil engineer would have to determine just exactly that, prior to. He said if the board wanted to put in the conditions that a copy of the new septic design would be received by the Code Enforcement Officer prior to the building permit, or occupancy, that is fine. He didn’t feel it was something the board had to deal with at this time, because without that they could not get their occupancy permit.
Roger A. stated that the soil engineer will design the system, including the grease trap, and the Deputy CEO will have to sign off saying the permit has been approved, and that it is being built according to whoever designed the system. Madge stated that she understood, but it was usual for the board not to have a design. She said that usually when the board approves something, they know where the system is going to go, in this case the board has nothing. Steve F. stated that right now the only restriction they have from the engineer, is the distance to the well. Steve said the septic is an allowable verification from the CEO.
§105-4.B – Definitions. Roger stated that this was a nonconforming lot of record. The applicant provided a copy of a deed to verify that at the date of creation it met the zoning criteria.
§105-4.C(4) – Change of use. Roger stated that the new use will not have any greater impact on adjacent properties with conditions.
105-17 – Land Uses. Roger A. stated that this was an allowed use but required a Conditional Use Permit.
105-20 – Applicability of standards; prohibited uses. Roger A. stated that this was before the board because it was an expanded use of the existing permit, and the location was being changed. He added that it was an allowed use.
105-21 – Traffic. Roger A. stated the speed limit in this location is 35 mph, and the minimum site distance required is 245 feet which can be met. Madge B., using the map provided by the applicant, stated that the minimum can be met or exceeded in both directions. Roger A. stated that he agreed they would meet the recommended of 350 feet.
105-22 – Noise. Roger A. stated there is a limited amount of noise generated by this activity. He read the noise requirement level that being a limit of 60 dB(A) between 7 am and 10 pm, and 45 dB(A) between 10 pm and 7 am.
105-23 – Dust, fumes, vapors and gases. Roger A. stated there is no dust, fumes, vapors or gases generated by this activity.
105-24 – Odors. Roger A. stated there would be no offensive odors produced by this activity.
105-25 – Glare. Roger A. stated that any additional lighting could not create a strong and dazzling light onto neighboring properties or cause a glare on the roadway to impair a driver’s vision.
105-26 – Stormwater runoff. Roger A. stated that a stormwater runoff plan was provided by Carl V. Beal, P.E. #5013, designed for a 50 year storm, which included a level spreader to contain the stormwater runoff.
105-27 – Erosion control. Roger A. stated that a revegetation plan was provided, for the area surrounding the parking area. Grass will be placed around the parking area, and the level spreader was designed to keep the stormwater on site. Madge B. stated that the board would need to know when the revegetation would be established.
105-28 – Setbacks and screening. Madge B. felt this section was not applicable, instead section 31 applied.
105-29 – Explosive materials. Roger A. asked if they were going to use propane? Mrs. Letourneau stated that they were. Roger stated that they would have to comply with the NFPA 58 Liquefied Petroleum Gas Code, typically the company supplying the gas will make sure it is in compliance.
105-30 – Water quality. Roger A. stated there are no changes being made to the property to affect water quality.
105-31 – Preservation of landscape; landscaping of parking and storage areas. Roger A. stated arborvitae shall be planted between the parking area and the neighboring residential property, and the dumpster shall be hidden as well. The shrubs shall be a minimum of six feet in height to prevent glare onto the neighboring property.
105-32 - Relation of proposed building to the environment. Roger A. stated the building is in existence and fits in well.
105-33 – Refuse disposal. Roger A. stated that Mrs. Letourneau stated they would be using a dumpster and it will be screened off.
105-34 – Access control on Routes 109 and 11. Roger A. stated the MDOT approved the proposed entrance and exit.
105-43 – Off-street parking and loading. Roger A. read the ordinance in its entirety, which included Section A which states no more than two entrances are allowed and no entrance or exit shall exceed 26 feet in width. Section B(1) which states that one space was required for each 150 square feet or fraction thereof of floor area of any retail, wholesale or service establishment or office or professional building. He added that one space is required for each three seats, permanent or otherwise, for patron use for restaurants and other places serving food or beverage and for theaters, auditoriums and other places of amusement or assembly, and a space is required for each person employed or anticipated to be employed. Roger stated that the stormwater plan was designed to keep stormwater runoff on site. Roger stated that based on this, 33 parking spaces were created on the plan. Madge B. asked how many outdoor seats there would be? Mrs. Letourneau stated there would be a total of 60 seats inside and out. She wasn’t sure how many would be outside.
105-46 – Sanitary provisions. Roger A. read Section B ‘Private sewage disposal. Roger stated that a system would need to be put in that would meet the State standards and it would include a grease trap.
105-47 – Signs. Roger A. stated this would be permitted by the Deputy CEO.
Roger A. then reviewed §105-73.G ‘Standards applicable to conditional uses’ and made findings of fact.
Standards applicable to conditional uses. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to demonstrate that the proposed use meets all of the following criteria. The Board shall approve the application unless it makes written findings that one or more of these criteria have not been met.
1) The use will not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, birds or other wildlife habitat. Roger A. stated, it will not.
2) The use will conserve shore cover and visual, as well as actual, access to water bodies. Roger A. stated this is not applicable.
3) The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Roger A. stated it is, the Comp Plan wants businesses along Route 109.
4) Traffic access to the site is safe. Roger A. stated the speed limit in this location is 35 mph, the minimum site distance is 245 feet and recommended is 350, both can be met in this location.
5) The site design is in conformance with all municipal flood hazard protection regulations. Roger A. stated it is, the structure is in existence, permitted by the Town, and is not in the flood zone.
6) Adequate provision for the disposal of all wastewater and solid waste has been made. Roger A. stated the applicant will have a dumpster for trash and there shall be a State approved Subsurface Wastewater Disposal System permitted and put in prior to the Occupancy Permit being issued.
7) Adequate provision for the transportation, storage and disposal of any hazardous materials has been made. Roger A. stated that there is none generated by this activity.
8) A stormwater drainage system capable of handling fifty-year storm without adverse impact on adjacent properties has been designed. Roger A. stated a stormwater system was designed by Carl V. Beal, P.E. #5013.
9) Adequate provisions to control soil erosion and sedimentation have been made. Roger A. stated an erosion control plan was designed by Carl V. Beal, P.E. #5013, and a revegetation plan was also provided for the area around the parking area.
10) There is adequate water supply to meet the demands of the proposed use and for fire protection purposes. Roger A. stated this will be determined by the State Fire Marshall prior to construction.
11) The provisions for buffer strips and on-site landscaping provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development, such as noise, glare, fumes, dust, odors and the like. Roger A. stated a landscaping plan was provided which included a row of arborvitae between the parking area and the neighboring residential property.
12) All performance standards in this chapter applicable to the proposed use will be met. Roger A. stated they shall with conditions.
1) The revegetation plan, including the planting of grass and arborvitae, shall be completed prior to the Occupancy Permit being issued, no later than October 1, 2019.
2) The hours of operation are 24 hours a day for baking, and 4 AM thru midnight for serving customers, 7 days a week.
3) The State Fire Marshall shall make certain there is adequate water supply to meet the demands of the proposed use and for fire protection purposes prior to construction, which includes fire suppression for the building.
4) The Alternate Code Enforcement Officer shall make certain there is adequate provision for the disposal of all wastewater and solid waste prior to issuing an Occupancy Permit.
Madge B. made the motion to move for approval of the Conditional Use Permit to relocate Keepin’ it Local to 130 Emery Mills Road, creating a larger kitchen, dining area and retail space, and including an outdoor dining space, on Map 18, Lot 30 per the plans submitted, with the above stated conditions. Ann H. 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. By a vote of 5 – 0, the motion passed unanimously.
1. The applicant is Mary Letourneau of 1110 of Milton Mills Road, Acton, Maine 04001.
2. The owner of Shapleigh Tax Map 18, Lot 30 (130 Emery Mills Road) is Paul J. Letourneau of 130 Emery Mills Road, Shapleigh, Maine 04076. There is a Purchase & Sales Agreement between Mrs. Letourneau and Mr. Letourneau (not related) with an Offer Date of October 29, 2018.
3. The property is located in the General Purpose District and according to the assessor, the property contains 1.3 acres.
4. The applicant is before the board for a Conditional Use Permit to relocate Keepin’ it Local from 120 Emery Mills Road to 130 Emery Mills Road.
5. Received was a letter from property owner Paul Letourneau stating Mary Letourneau had permission to move forward with the conditional use permit; a sketch plan depicting the existing structure, septic & leachfield location, and arrows depicting how the traffic will flow on the property; a sketch plan depicting the existing structure and driveway on the property; an aerial photo of the property; an aerial photo of the property including distances from the existing structure to the side lot lines and Emery Mills Road; Subsurface Waste Water Disposal System Application for a 3 bedroom home, drafted by John E. Large, SE #7, dated 11/4/11; and a copy of the Purchase & Sale Agreement between Mary Letourneau and Paul Letourneau with an Offer Date of October 29, 2018.
proposed expansion of the existing structure. Also depicted were 33 parking places, and how the traffic will flow, including a separate lane for drive-thru traffic.
7. Received were two (2) - 11 x 17” prints entitled Keepin it Local - Proposed Improvements – Drainage Study – 130 Emery Mills Road, Shapleigh Maine’. Print D1 noted the following, “Work performed by Carl V. Beal is limited to stormwater drainage only. Survey information was provided by LinePro Land Surveying, LLC”. Print D2 noted the following, “Work performed by Carl V. Beal is limited to stormwater drainage only. Building addition, new parking and traffic pattern, and other improvements were provided by others”.
8. Received was an email to the PB dated December 11, 2018 at 11:27 AM from Anthony Fontaine of the MDOT, it stated the proposal for two separate access points is acceptable. He concluded because everything meets or exceeds the minimum standard for a major collector highway, further review by others here at MaineDOT is not required and I will issue the permit as proposed (two separate access points, one for entry and one for exit, each 24’ wide). He noted that the town was free to impose their own requirements but the proposal satisfies State statutes.
9. Received was a letter from Carl V. Beal, P.E. #5013 of Civil Consultants, regarding the Stormwater Drainage Study for the new location of Keepin It Local, that being 130 Emery Mills Road. The letter read in part that post-development runoff will flow in the same direction as pre-development. A new Stone Level Spreader will be installed at the SE corner of the parcel to control the increase in runoff from the new impervious surfaces and to reduce the potential for erosion of the existing Rte. 109 swale and abutting properties. In conclusion, construction of the new Keepin It Local facility will result in no negative impacts due to stormwater runoff to downstream properties, tributaries, or Mousam Lake.
10. Received was a letter from Fire Chief Duane Romano, dated January 15, 2019, which read in part as follows: As the Chief of the Shapleigh Fire Department, it is my recommendation that one of the following be implemented for fire suppression: 1) A 20,000 gallon cistern system be placed on the property, or, a sprinkler be installed. Repairs and maintenance of the sprinkler system shall be the responsibility of the property owner. The Shapleigh Fire Department will check the water level of the cistern at their discretion and add water if necessary. Please have the applicant contact me with their decision.
11. Received was a Warranty Deed from Walter G. Rand and Clara M. Rand to Donna M. Ruopp and George M. Ruopp, Book 4003, Page 189, describing Map 18, Lot 30, containing highlighted information regarding road frontage that being 151 feet, dated December 16, 1982; a replanting plan which denotes areas of grass to be planted and 24 – 6’ Arborvitae’s between the parking area and adjacent residential property; an updated Proposed Improvements Drainage Study, which depicted additional water management information on page D2, and added a page D3, which describes how the Level Spreader will manage a 50-year storm event; and provided was the Maine Erosion and Sediment Control BMP guidelines for a level spreader from 2016.
13. The board reviewed the Basic Performance Standards and the board concurred the application met all the standards imposed.
14. The board reviewed Zoning Ordinance §105-73, Section G, ‘Standards applicable to conditional uses’ and concurred the application and information as presented met the performance standards in this chapter, with conditions.
15. A notice was mailed to all abutters within 500 feet of the property on November 14, 2018. Meetings were held on November 13, 2018, November 27, 2018, January 8, 2019 and January 22, 2019. A site inspection was not necessary as members were aware of the location.
16. The Planning Board unanimously agreed to approve the Conditional Use Permit to relocate Keepin’ it Local to Map 18, Lot 30, per the plans provided with conditions.
conditional uses’ a motion was made on Tuesday, January 22, 2019 to approve the Conditional Use Permit to move Keepin’ it Local to Map 18, Lot 30, per the plans provided, with four conditions.
By a unanimous vote of 5 – 0, the motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit to move Keepin’ it Local to Map 18, Lot 30, per the plans provided, with four conditions, was accepted.
The Conditional Use Permit to move Keepin’ it Local to Map 18, Lot 30, per the plans provided, with four conditions, was approved.
Roger A. asked RC Burnell if there were going to be any changes to the gravel pit? RC Burnell stated there were not. He said that they reclaimed out front, that which was requested in 2016, this area is closed down. He said everything is out back and the Town is still loading from the same footprint. Roger asked if there would be any reclaiming of that? RC Burnell stated that they are still under the 5 acre guideline for reclamation. He thought it would be at least another year or two before they had to reclaim that area. He said there was plenty of material there. He said the Town had taken the loam from the top and is saving wood chips to reclaim the area.
Roger A. asked if there were any changes for this permit, from the last approval? RC Burnell stated there were no changes, they were doing gravel extraction, a little storage of sand and processed material.
Roland L. asked if they were going to continue to use the same entrance and exit? RC Burnell stated they would be using the same entrance and exit. Roland said, “Projecting down the road, after that area is reclaimed, would you then change the entrance point or would you still just use the same”. RC Burnell stated they would still use the same entrance, unless down the line there was another parcel purchased between the sand/salt facility and the one we are using now.
Roger A. stated because there are no changes, the board will mail out a notice to abutter’s and hold a public hearing to let the public know what is going on. The public hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 12th at 6:00 p.m. Board members know the location, so there is no need for a site inspection.
Mr. Cochrane and Mr. Day were present for the review of the application.
Proposed Business Location: Lot 12 Deering Ridge Road access.
Honest Cords Firewood started with one goal, to sell honestly. The reason I started HCF is because I have witnessed too many people being taken advantage of by other firewood providers through shorted cords, price gouging, and wood being sold as seasoned when not truly seasoned. HCF is a small one person operation that has family help in the summer and on weekends. We are looking for a location to settle in and grow our family business. The location of Lot 12 on Deering Ridge Road, Shapleigh, is a very exciting prospect for HCF.
HCF’s current hours of operation are Monday – Sunday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. If I am at this location I will be sure to work with the abutting land owners (neighbors) to assure an amicable working relationship with them.
The red box indicates the general area I intend to use as the business grows, allowing adequate tree cover and buffer between abutting properties. Honest Cords Firewood will use this portion of property for the processing, stock piling and loading of firewood for delivery. We receive tree length logs that are brought in via logging trucks from local logging companies. There is head in head out access (white lines) for the logging trucks to and from the property. Tree length wood (green boxes) will be dropped off for processing into firewood. Processed firewood will be stock piled for seasoning (blue box).
Roger began by asking Mr. Cochrane if there were any changes to the hours of operation, based on the comments that were made during the public hearing. Mr. Cochrane stated that he wasn’t going to make changes, because he knew that if he said he would not operate for two weekend days, and then there was rain during the week, he would need to work at least one of the weekend days to make up for it. He stated that he spoke with the neighbors present during the public hearing and they agreed to talk more about it in the future. He wanted to work something out that would work for everyone.
105-17 – Land Uses. Roger A. stated the reason why the applicant was before the board is because a business requires a Conditional Use Permit in the general purpose district. He stated the size of the lot is adequate, it meets the 2 acre minimum required, and it has the required road frontage of 200 feet.
105-21 – Traffic. Roger A. stated the speed limit in this location is 35 mph, and the minimum site distance required is 245 feet and the recommended is 350 feet. Using the plans provided, the board agreed there was approximately 400 feet of site distance in one direction and greater than 400 feet in the other, therefore, the site distance requirement can be met.
105-22 – Noise. Roger A. stated the noise requirement level, that being a limit of 60 dB(A) between 7 am and 10 pm, and 45 dB(A) between 10 pm and 7 am. Roger stated that Mr. Cochrane stated the decibel at the equipment is registering at 63 decibels, but believed it was below the 60 at the lots lines, so it is within the limits allowed. Madge B. stated there would be noise from trucks but noted the applicant stated there would only be on average one truck a week, being on site for approximately 20 minutes to unload. Madge stated that the applicant will organize the trucks, so they come on site at a reasonable hour.
105-23 – Dust, fumes, vapors and gases. Roger A. stated there may be fuel emissions generated by this activity, but they should not go beyond the lot lines.
105-24 – Odors. Roger A. stated there can be no offensive odors produced by this activity beyond the lot lines.
105-25 – Glare. Roger A. stated there is to be no glare onto neighboring properties or onto the roadway, as all activity shall take place during daylight hours.
105-26 – Stormwater runoff. Roger A. stated that stormwater runoff has to be detained on site, as much as possible and practical. Roger stated the only change to the property would be the driveway or lay down areas.
culvert is required it will placed on site. Madge asked about sawdust, if it was created. Mr. Cochrane stated that he did create sawdust and it would be removed for biomass and/or local farms use it. He said if there was an excess, it can be taken to Simpson’s for disposal. Madge noted that she did not see it as waste.
105-29 – Explosive materials. Roger A. asked if there was any outdoor storage for fuel? Mr. Cochrane stated that there was not, it was stored in his truck.
105-30 – Water quality. Roger A. stated there are no changes being made to the property to affect water quality, fuel will not be stored on site.
105-31 – Preservation of landscape; landscaping of parking and storage areas. Roger A. stated the applicant is going to preserve the existing vegetation as much as possible, keeping the site in a natural state.
105-32 - Relation of proposed building to the environment. Roger A. stated there was no structure being built for this application.
105-33 – Refuse disposal. Roger A. stated there would be a minimal amount of refuse disposal. Madge B. asked about fuel spillage, what would be done with material associated with that? Mr. Cochrane stated he had hazmat material if anything happens. He added that they have a small hydraulic tank, perhaps 5 gallons, but he did have materials to clean up any spillage from that. He said to date they have never had a spill. Madge asked what they did with the hazmat once it has material on it? Mr. Cochrane said it would be taken care of appropriately either through Sanford or Shapleigh.
105-46 – Sanitary provisions. Roger A. asked if they would be having a portable toilet on site? Mr. Cochrane stated he lived only two miles down the road, so he didn’t foresee the necessity for one at this time. He said in the future if he puts in a small shop, he will come in for a permit at that time, and an amendment to this permit.
105-47 – Signs. Roger A. stated this would be permitted by the CEO.
Roland L. asked if the firewood processor was self-leveling, did it have leveling pads, or did Mr. Cochrane have to build a pad for it? Mr. Cochrane stated currently he drives around the yard and processes as he goes. He said it was just eyeballing it, the machine is not fussy, it didn’t have to be perfectly level.
Roger A. asked if there were any other questions? There were none.
3) The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Roger A. stated it is, the Comp Plan wants small family owned businesses.
5) The site design is in conformance with all municipal flood hazard protection regulations. Roger A. stated it is, is not in the flood zone.
6) Adequate provision for the disposal of all wastewater and solid waste has been made. Roger A. stated the applicant will remove wood chips and sawdust as required. There is no Subsurface Wastewater Disposal System required at this time.
7) Adequate provision for the transportation, storage and disposal of any hazardous materials has been made. Roger A. stated that there are no hazardous materials being stored on site. Any spillage of hydraulic oil will be taken care of immediately with a hazmat and disposed of properly.
8) A stormwater drainage system capable of handling fifty-year storm without adverse impact on adjacent properties has been designed. Roger A. stated there are no changes being made to the site that would require a stormwater plan. The only change will be to the driveway. If a culvert is needed it will be put in.
9) Adequate provisions to control soil erosion and sedimentation have been made. Roger A. stated there are no changes to the existing vegetation that would require an erosion control plan, only the driveway will be re-leveled.
10) There is adequate water supply to meet the demands of the proposed use and for fire protection purposes. Roger A. stated there is a pond with fire hydrant across the street. Mr. Cochrane added that there was a fire extinguisher on all his equipment.
11) The provisions for buffer strips and on-site landscaping provide adequate protection to neighboring properties from detrimental features of the development, such as noise, glare, fumes, dust, odors and the like. Roger A. stated no additional buffer is needed at this time. There will only be logs added to the site, and firewood.
1) Hours of operations shall be 8 AM to 5 PM, 7 days a week.
2) A driveway permit must be obtained and the Road Commissioner will determine if a culvert is required.
Roland L. stated that he would take the applicant at his word that he would work out an amicable situation with respect to hours of operation. He also noted he was happy that the applicant was going to maintain a buffer strip between his property and the neighbors that attended who had concerns. Mr. Cochrane stated that he would be sure everyone was on the same page.
Madge B. asked about how culverts got dealt with? Roger A. stated the Road Commissioner was the person who determined whether or not a culvert was required. Roger said that while obtaining a driveway permit the RC makes the determination. Roland L. thought there may be one in existence at this time. Mr. Cochrane was not sure.
Madge B. stated that she wanted to be sure if dirt gets onto the road, because of the logging trucks or delivery truck, that it gets taken care of. Madge said sometimes the RC asks the applicant to pave a few feet or add crushed gravel. Mr. Cochrane stated that he understood, he said in the past he had to sweep the road. Madge wanted to add this to the conditions. Roger A. added to condition #2, that the issue of sand on the road also be discussed with the RC.
2) A driveway permit must be obtained and the Road Commissioner will determine if a culvert is required, or measures need to be taken with respect to the possibility of dirt being deposited on the road by the logging / delivery trucks.
Maggie M. made the motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit for a firewood business known as ‘Honest Cords Firewood’ to be located on Map 1, Lot 12, with the stated two conditions. Roland L. 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. By a vote of 5 – 0, the motion passed unanimously.
1. The applicant is Tim Cochrane of 1 Sabrina Lane, Springvale, Maine 04083.
2. The owner of Shapleigh Tax Map 1, Lot 11 (221 Deering Ridge Road), is Richard Day of 636 Gore Road, Alfred, Maine 04002.
3. The property is located in the General Purpose District and according to the assessor, the property contains 61.53 acres.
4. The applicant is before the board for a Conditional Use Permit to open a firewood business to be known as Honest Cords Firewood.
and that he granted Tim Cochrane permission to operate a firewood business known as ‘Honest Cords Firewood’ on a portion of the property.
6. Received was a copy of the Purchase and Sale Agreement between Stanley Family Trust and Richard Day, dated December 13, 2018 and to be executed on January 11, 2019.
5:00 p.m. If I am at this location I will be sure to work with the abutting land owners (neighbors) to assure an amicable working relationship with them.
8. Received was a plan, also part of the detailed description, which depicted the following: On the Map of Lot 12, the red box indicated the general area to be used as the business grows, allowing adequate tree cover and buffer between abutting properties. This portion of property will be used for the processing, stock piling and loading of firewood for delivery. Tree length logs are brought in via logging trucks from local logging companies. There is head in head out access (white lines) for the logging trucks to and from the property. Tree length wood (green boxes) will be dropped off for processing into firewood. Processed firewood will be stock piled for seasoning (blue box).
9. The board reviewed the Basic Performance Standards and the board concurred the application met all the standards imposed.
10. The board reviewed Zoning Ordinance §105-73, Section G, ‘Standards applicable to conditional uses’ and concurred the application and information as presented met the performance standards in this chapter, with conditions.
11. A notice was mailed to all abutters within 500 feet of the property on January 9, 2019. Meetings were held on January 8, 2019 and January 22, 2019. A site inspection was done on an individual basis.
12. The Planning Board unanimously agreed to approve the Conditional Use Permit to operate a firewood business to be known as ‘Honest Cords Firewood’, to be located on Map 1, Lot 12, per the plans provided with conditions.
After careful consideration and a review of all material presented to the Board, including the review of the Zoning Ordinances ‘Basic Performance Standards’, and §105-73, Section G, ‘Standards applicable to conditional uses’ a motion was made on Tuesday, January 22, 2019 to approve the Conditional Use Permit for a firewood business to be known as ‘Honest Cords Firewood’, to be located on Map 1, Lot 12, per the plans provided, with two conditions.
By a unanimous vote of 5 – 0, the motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit for a firewood business to be known as ‘Honest Cords Firewood’, to be located on Map 1, Lot 12, per the plans provided, with two conditions, was accepted.
The Conditional Use Permit for a firewood business to be known as ‘Honest Cords Firewood’, to be located on Map 1, Lot 12, per the plans provided, with two conditions was approved.
The Planning Board meeting ended at 8:05 p.m.
The next meeting will be held Tuesday, February 12, 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: V. 
 V. 
 §105

§105

§105
 V. 
 §105
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 §105
 §105
 §105