May 30, 2015  12:14 AM 
May 14, 2015
Other Notices
March 04, 2015
February 02, 2015
November 12, 2014

SHAPLEIGH PLANNING BOARD

MINUTES

Tuesday, April 28 2015

Members in attendance: Roger Allaire (Chairman), Maggie Moody (Vice Chair), Madge Baker, Roland Legere, Diane Srebnick, Alternate Ann Harris, as well as Barbara Felong (Secretary). Code Enforcement Officer Steven McDonough was also in attendance. Alternate Steve Foglio was unable to attend.

**************************

The following words are not verbatim unless accompanied by quotation marks “ ”

**************************

Public Hearing began at 7:00 p.m.

Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit – Proposed 2nd Floor and Addition to the Showroom, Plus Adding a 105’ x 120’ Boat Storage Building – Map 3, Lot 16A (86 Emery Mills Road) – Mark Parker, Owner Mr. Parker and Jill Richards were present for the public hearing.

At the first meeting, Mr. Parker provided a sketch plan depicting the size of lot, the location of the existing showroom, three storage buildings, the proposed addition to the showroom and the proposed boat storage building. The distance of both the existing and proposed buildings to the lot lines was also on the plan, along with square foot dimensions for the foundations of the existing structures and the size of the addition to the existing lot being 132,422.40 sq. ft. after the purchase of additional property.

Also provided were addition plans for the existing showroom, showing the 420 sq. ft. addition and 30’ x 30’ second floor addition; the basic plans of the proposed 105’ x 120’ boat storage building; the proposed Deed Description depicting the land purchase from Richard and Virginia Gallant which was added to the existing property; a survey of the lots purchased and added to the property; and a letter from Mark Parker which stated Jill Richards could represent him at the meeting on Tuesday, April 14, 2015.

Roger A. opened the public hearing by asking the applicant to state what they were going to be doing. Mr. Richards stated they would be building a 14’ x 30’ addition to the right of the showroom, when facing it, adding a 12 foot garage bay and the second floor will be office space. She stated that the proposed storage building would be 105’ x 120’, and it would be a metal storage building. There will be no power, lights, water or heat. It is for storage only.

Madge B. asked if there was an office there now? Ms. Richards stated it was a very small office. Ms. Richards stated the new addition would probably be more storage than anything else because they have no place at present to store anything.

Madge B. asked if the downstairs would be for service? Ms. Richards stated the addition over is going above the existing shop and the addition on the first floor is for an area to be able to work on larger items than what they can do at this time.

Madge B. asked if there would be any plumbing upstairs? Ms. Richards stated there would be a bathroom, and an employee break room area. She said again that there would be items stored as well, as they had no other area at present for storage of items.

Page 1 of 12

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 4/28/2015 Page 2 of 12

Madge B. asked about waste oil and gasoline? Ms. Richards stated there would be no more waste oil or

gasoline processed than what they are doing at this time. She said at this time they have 250 gallon waste oil containers that are disposed of approximately once a year by Clean Harbors. She said they did not dispose of any chemical products themselves.

Madge B. asked if there would be a concrete pad under the addition? Ms. Richards stated there would be and there is an existing drain in the service area for water. She noted that it was just water, not anything else that went into the drain. Roger A. said any additional drainage would be permitted by Code Enforcement.

Madge. B. asked if there would be any additional lighting? She wanted to be sure no lights were shining towards the neighbors. Ms. Richards stated they had only one existing light and did not plan on adding anything new.

Mr. Bill Paladino, an abutter asked to speak. Mr. Paladino stated he had no issue with Mr. Parker’s plans but he was concerned with the stormwater runoff created by the removal of the trees on the hillside where the proposed storage building would be going. He said he lived on 4th street and the stormwater from the hillside where Parker’s business currently exists, runs across and under Route 109, down 3rd street then onto 4th street and across his property into the lake. He wanted to know how the water to be displaced by the new structure would be mitigated, so it did not add to the existing stormwater issue. He said he realized the water problem was not all from the Parker property and he noted he had spoken with the Board of Selectmen several years ago and they were going to hire an engineer to try to help with the issue by either resizing culverts or diverting water but he did not follow through due to a health issue and so the engineering never took place.

Mr. Paladino said he had already spent in excess of $12,000 to replace the road and add rip rap down the side of his property. He stated that one large storm created a flood such that he had to use a plow truck at the end of 3rd street to help to divert water as there was a 2 foot wave of water. He provided pictures to show the board members of past storms and the water created.

Mr. Paladino was concerned that the addition and new building would only add to the water issue that currently exists. Mr. Parker stated that they were not going to add more hot top. Ann H. thought the new addition might divert some of the stormwater and help the situation. CEO McDonough noted that in the Ordinance it states that stormwater had to be reviewed. Roger A. agreed stating it is supposed to stay on the property of the applicant. §105-26 ‘Stormwater runoff’ read in part: Surface water runoff shall be minimized and shall be detained on-site if possible and practicable. If it is not possible to detain water on-site, downstream improvements to the channel may be required of the developer to prevent flooding caused by this project. The natural state of watercourses, swales, berms, terraces, wooden areas and floodways, or rights-of-way shall be maintained as nearly as possible. The design period is the fifty-year storm (the largest storm which would be likely to occur during a fifty-year period).

CEO McDonough asked what the size of the new building would be? Ms. Richards stated 105’ x 120’ would be the size of the new storage building. CEO McDonough asked if there was a plot plan? Roger A. provided a copy for him. CEO McDonough asked Mr. Paladino to show where there was an existing water issue. Mr. Paladino showed the location of existing culverts in that area both on the side of the road of Mr. Parker’s location and along the other side near Mr. Berube’s property and 3rd Street.

Madge B. agreed the addition of the new structure would add to the problem, but agreed the overall problem was bigger than this project. Madge reviewed the ordinance once again. Mr. Paladino stated that when they removed the vegetation that was helping to mitigate the water problem on the hill, the issue got worse. He said once the new building is up and there is sheeting action off the roof the problem becomes worse. He said again the Town of Shapleigh agreed there was an existing issue but nothing was ever done. Ms.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 4/28/2015 Page 3 of 12

Richards stated that they too have water issues and she did not know how she could help. Mr. Parker pointed out Ted’s (restaurant) and the pavement and that that creates a stormwater issue but not the same issue as in this location.

CEO McDonough asked if they could put gutters on the proposed addition to direct the water to the ground and away from the paved surface? Madge B. agreed this would be the best solution in this location. Ann H. said that if they put a gutter on the front side they could direct it onto the ground beside the building.

Mr. Paladino asked if there would be an entrance from Route 109 to the new building? Ms. Richards and Mr. Parker stated there would not. Mr. Parker added that the area around the new building would be grass, it was not going to be a paved parking area. He added that the new building would have limited access.

Mr. Paladino said again that this was a serious issue that only continued to get worse. Mr. Parker said that perhaps the State needed to get involved and fix the culverts to help direct the water. Mr. Paladino agreed and said that the culverts were probably put in over 30 years ago and the size of them has not been changed. He thought there should also be an area to hold the water, some kind of retention area, because at present it goes directly into the lake and that was causing issues as well.

Maggie M. wondered if Mr. Paladino went to the Town now if they wouldn’t look into this issue again, get an engineer to see what could be done? Maggie thought that the board could require gutters on the addition and then Mr. Paladino goes back to the town to discuss getting an engineer.

Roland L. asked when the pictures he showed the board were taken? Mr. Paladino stated some were three years ago, and others were from this year. Roland said, then these were multiple events. Mr. Paladino said, yes, and noted several could be from 5 years ago.

Mr. Parker asked how many things had changed on 3rd Street over the course of time? Mr. Paladino stated there had been some changes further down 3rd Street but not in the location where the water issue exists. Mr. Parker noted that Mr. Berube had made changes to his property. Mr. Paladino agreed and noted that now some of the water goes through his yard as well. Mr. Paladino said you can’t change the amount of water that comes off the hill on Mr. Parker’s property, but he said changing the landscape can add to the problem.

Roger A. asked if there were any additional questions? There were none.

The public hearing closed at 7:33 p.m.

**************************

The planning board meeting started at 7:33 p.m.

The minutes were accepted as read.

***************************

Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit – Proposed 2nd Floor and Addition to the Showroom, Plus Adding a 105’ x 120’ Boat Storage Building – Map 3, Lot 16A (86 Emery Mills Road) – Mark Parker, Owner

Mr. Parker and Ms. Jill Richards were present for the review of the application. Note: Board members did a site review prior to this evenings meeting.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 4/28/2015 Page 4 of 12

Roger A. began by stating that the applicant was before the board to add to the existing showroom. He noted that the new storage building would be discussed at another meeting. Ms. Richards said that was correct. Roger asked the applicant if he wanted to table the issue until they get the actual size for the new structure? Ms. Richards said yes, they would like to move forward with the 14’ x 30’ addition. She said they needed an engineer to look over where the best placement for the new structure would be. CEO McDonough noted that the application could only be tabled for 90 days. Ms. Richards asked if it was 90 days from this evening? Roger said, yes. She agreed tabling the application would be best at this time as long as she could move forward with the addition, as that is what they needed completed as soon as possible.

Madge B. made the motion to table the application for 90 days, for the 105’ x 120’ boat storage building only. Maggie M. 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. By a motion of 5-0, the motion passed unanimously.

Ms. Richards stated that the proposed addition was now smaller than what they originally proposed. The total square feet, including overhangs would be 434 sq. ft. She noted they eliminated the overhang on the gable end and back. They would only have the overhang on the front of the structure, so it would match the existing structure.

Roger A. asked if there were any additional questions at this time? There were none.

Roger A. stated the reason the applicants were before the board was because under §105-73.B(1), it states, ‘A conditional use which existed prior to the effective date of this chapter may not be changed to another conditional use nor substantially expanded or altered except in conformity with all regulations of this chapter pertaining to conditional uses. Substantial expansion shall be defined as: (a) Floor space increase of 25%; or (b) New materials or processes not previously associated with the existing use’.

Roger A. began review of the pertinent ordinances.

105-21 – Traffic. Roger A. stated access to the site was safe and in existence at this time. No changes were being made to the entrance to the business.

105-22 – Noise. There will be no noise generated from the activity.

105-23 – Dust, fumes, vapors and gases. There is no dust, fumes, vapors or gases, generated by this activity.

105-24 – Odors. N/A - There will be no obnoxious odors generated.

105-25 – Glare. There shall be no additional lighting added to the structure.

105-26 – Stormwater runoff. The addition to the existing structure will have minimal impact to the stormwater issue but the proposed new structure will need to have a stormwater plan to mitigate water runoff.

It was later discussed that gutters would be required on the front of the building to direct water into the ground.

105-27 – Erosion control. There will be hay bales used while the addition is being constructed. A gutter will be placed on the front of building. When the new storage building is reviewed, a revegetation plan will have to be created along with an engineered stormwater plan.

105-28 – Setbacks and screening. No additional screening will be needed with the proposed addition. The business is in existence now with no issues.

105-29 – Explosive materials. There shall be no explosive material stored in the addition.

105-30 – Water quality. There is no waste or hazardous material being stored outside. There will be a cement slab under the addition.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 4/28/2015 Page 5 of 12

105-31 – Preservation of landscape; landscaping of parking and storage areas. There are no changes being made to the site with respect to the location of the addition, no additional parking is being created.

105-32 - Relation of proposed building to the environment. The existing building(s) fits in well with the surrounding area and existing structures on site.

105-33 – Refuse disposal. Refuse will be removed as it is currently being done for the existing business.

105-34 – Access control on Route 109 & 11. There is an existing approved entrance onto Route 109, minimum site distances can be met.

105-43 – Off-street parking and loading. There is are no changes being made to the existing parking area.

105-46 – Sanitary provisions. There is an existing State approved septic system on site for the home/business, additional plumbing shall be permitted through the Code Enforcement Officer.

Roger A. asked if there were any questions? There were none.

Roger A. reviewed Shapleigh Zoning Ordinance 105-73.G “Standards applicable to conditional uses”.

1) The use will not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, birds or other wildlife habitat. Roger stated, it will not.

2) The use will conserve shore cover and visual, as well as actual, access to water bodies. N/A

3) The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Roger stated it is, the Comprehensive Plan encourages businesses along Rte. 109.

4) Traffic access to the site is safe. Roger stated it is, and the entrance for the business has been in existence for years and there will be no change.

5) The site design is in conformance with all municipal flood hazard protection regulations. Roger stated it is. The business is not in a flood zone.

6) Adequate provision for the disposal of all wastewater and solid waste has been made. There is a State approved system in existence.

7) Adequate provision for the transportation, storage and disposal of any hazardous materials has been made. Roger stated all waste oils shall continue to be disposed of as they are now by Clean Harbor and all waste oil will continue to be kept in the existing containment.

8) A stormwater drainage system capable of handling twenty-five-year storm without adverse impact on adjacent properties has been designed. Gutters shall be added to the front of the building/addition to divert stormwater away from the paved area and into a downspout to the ground.

9) Adequate provisions to control soil erosion and sedimentation have been made. Hay bales shall be used during construction of the addition and a gutter system shall be placed on the front of the new addition, directing water to the ground to be dispersed.

Mr. Parker did not think a gutter system would provide any relief. He also asked if the gutter would add to the square footage of the structure? CEO McDonough stated that it would. Mr. Parker stated, “Then I do not want it.” Madge B. stated it was up to the board whether or not the gutters would be required. Mr. Parker stated that he did not use gutters anywhere now, he found them to be more of a bother than a help. He noted that 15’ x 14’ is a small area and didn’t think gutters should be required. Madge stated that the board had to minimize the water problem.

10) There is adequate water supply to meet the demands of the proposed use and for fire protection purposes. Roger stated there is.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 4/28/2015 Page 6 of 12

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. There are no changes being made to the surrounding area. There is no additional lighting being added.

12) All performance standards in this chapter applicable to the proposed use will be met. They shall with conditions.

Roger A. stated the conditions of the permit would be:

1. There shall be gutters placed along the front of the showroom, including the addition, and downspouts to the ground, to keep the stormwater off any impervious surface.

2. Hay bales shall be placed during construction to prevent an erosion issue.

Ms. Richards asked if they could take the gutters down if an engineer redesigns the culvert? She didn’t understand why the water issue was their responsibility. Madge B. stated that the existing water problem wasn’t their issue but stormwater coming off their roof onto pavement was their issue. Roger A. explained how gutters keep the water from sheeting down across the driveway adding to the existing issue. He noted that an applicant had to mitigate stormwater in some fashion and gutters would be the easiest way in this situation.

Roger A. asked if there were any addition questions? There were none.

Madge B. made the motion to approve the Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for a 14’ x 30’ addition to the existing showroom on Map 3, Lot 16A with the above stated conditions that being adding gutters to front side of the structure with downspouts to the ground and using hay bales during construction. Maggie M. 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. Motion passed unanimously, 5 – 0.

Findings of Facts

1. The Owner of Shapleigh Tax Map 3, Lot 16A (86 Emery Mills Road) is Mark Parker, D/B/A Parker’s Boathouse Inc., 86 Emery Mills Road, Shapleigh, Maine 04076

2. The property is located in the General Purpose District and according to the Assessor’s Office contains 8.17 Acres.

3. The applicant provided a copy of the Proposed Deed Description for property purchased from Richard and Virginia Gallant which increased their existing lot size by 3.04 acres or 132,422 sq. ft.

4. The applicant provided a site plan depicting the lot lines in relation to the existing 3 storage structures and showroom, as well as the proposed addition to the showroom and 105’ x 120’ boat storage building.

5. The applicant provided a plan depicting a picture of the existing structure with proposed 14’ x 30’ first floor addition and the proposed 30’ x 30’ second floor addition.

6. The applicant provided a proposed plan for the 105’ x 120’ steel boat storage building.

7. The applicant provided a survey map depicting the ‘Land of Mark Parker’ as of October 2014.

8. A notice was mailed to all abutters within 500 feet of the property, Wednesday, April 15, 2015.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 4/28/2015 Page 7 of 12

9. A site inspection was conducted on April 28, 2015, prior to the planning board meeting and a Public Hearing was held on that same evening.

10. The Planning Board made the motion to table the application for 90 days, for the 105’ x 120’ boat storage building only, until further information could be provided. All members were in favor. By a vote of 5-0, the motion passed unanimously.

11. The Planning Board unanimously agreed to approve the Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for a 14’ x 30’ addition to the existing showroom on Map 3, Lot 16A, per the plans provided and as discussed at the board meeting on April 28, 2015, with conditions.

12. The conditions of the permit are:

1. There shall be gutters placed on the front of the showroom, including the addition, and downspouts to the ground, to keep the stormwater off any impervious surface.

2. Hay bales shall be placed during construction to prevent an erosion issue.

Mr. Paladino asked if the stormwater issue would come up at the next meeting to review the new building? Roger A. stated yes, stormwater would have to be addressed. Roger believed DOT should be contacted with respect to the culvert.

Nothing more was discussed.

--------------------------------------

Best Possible Location – Replace Existing Home – Map 28, Lot 28 (16 17th Street) – Eric & Theresa Estochen, Applicants

Mr. and Mrs. Estochen were present for the review of their application.

At the first meeting, provided was a letter from the applicant describing the project, that being they would like to replace the existing structure that was built in the 1930’s which is located approximately 20 feet from the high water mark, and build a new structure moving it farther from the water. The letter also stated in 1997 a new septic system was installed on the property which does in part dictate the possible location of the new structure, along with setbacks. In addition, provided was a site plan done by Joe Stanley of LinePro Land Surveying in Shapleigh, which showed the location of the existing house, deck, retaining walls, patio(s), stairs, storage building, approximate septic location and elevation(s) on the lot. An additional site plan was provided, depicting the existing house, deck, patio(s), stairs, storage building, approximate location of the septic system, along with a ‘proposed’ structure location.

Mr. Estochen provided the board members with a revised plan, depicting the ‘proposed’ structure moved back, a replanting schedule, site elevations, location of the septic system, location of the existing house and stairs, existing and proposed retaining wall(s), existing storage building and proposed 14’ x 24’ garage.

Mr. Estochen stated that to stay within the lot coverage requirement, they will reduce the size of the proposed garage if necessary. Roger A. said the proposed retaining wall was to keep the grade to a minimum. Mr. Estochen agreed and said water coming off the roofline will be filtered there and noted there would be grass planted in that area as well.

Madge B. asked if the board had to look at the existing footprint and move it back, not the proposed? Board members showed Madge, who was unable to be at the first review of the application, the drawing which

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 4/28/2015 Page 8 of 12

depicted the original size of the structure moved back. Madge believed the board needed to use the drawing which showed the existing size of the structure moved back, not the proposed, but she believed they could use the replanting schedule on the plan they received this evening.

Madge B., looking at the plan, thought the septic location and the setbacks were the determining factor when locating the structure. She thought, looking at the plan, that the existing footprint might be able to be moved back beyond the 100 foot mark. Mr. Estochen showed Madge where on the new plan the 100 foot mark was located. He also noted that the footprint of the existing structure was moved back to 68 feet from the high water mark and the proposed structure was 73 feet from the high water mark.

Madge B. thought the board should say that they want the back of the existing structure to be moved back to 20 feet from the septic system location.

CEO McDonough stated that the existing location of the structure needed to be revegetated. Mr. Estochen pointed to the plan which denotes the area would be restored to existing grade and all disturbed areas will be stabilized with mulch. CEO McDonough said that mulch was not vegetation. §105-4.D(7)(2), ‘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.’

CEO McDonough also stated that the proposed retaining wall would not be allowed as it was within 100 feet of the high water mark. Board members were concerned with this due to the grade in that area. They believed the retaining wall was the best way to stabilize the area. CEO McDonough stated if there was an issue, an engineered plan may be required. Diane S. thought without the retaining wall there would be an erosion issue, therefore, more plants would be required in that area than what is depicted on the plan.

Roger A., looking at the plan, stated that the original structure could not be moved back more than another 10 feet due to the location of the septic system. Madge B. agreed but said that the board could move it back the 10 feet.

Madge B. stated that the board could approve the best possible location, then Mr. Estochen could go to CEO McDonough to work out the size of the house, then return to the board with a final revegetation plan. Roland L. asked if the Planning Board had to approve the revegetation plan or could the responsibility be given to CEO McDonough? Diane S. stated that the Planning Board always approves the revegetation plan. Roland said he understood this but asked again if CEO McDonough could do it? Diane said she did not feel the responsibility was up to the CEO. CEO McDonough read from the ordinance, 105-4.D(7)(b), ‘When it is necessary to remove vegetation within the water or wetland setback area in order to relocate a structure, the Planning Board shall require replanting of native vegetation to compensate for the destroyed vegetation.’ Madge believed CEO McDonough ‘could’ do it. CEO McDonough stated that he could approve the entire project if the board wanted him to but he thought it was before the board for their approval.

Board members agreed the revegetation plan would come back before the board for approval.

Roger A. asked if there were any additional questions? There were none.

Madge B. made the motion to approve the best possible location of the non-conforming structure located on Map 28, Lot 28, per the plan provided, moving the size of the existing structure back to 20 feet from the leach field envelope, with the following conditions:

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 4/28/2015 Page 9 of 12

1. The applicant shall return to the Planning Board for approval of the revegetation plan prior to construction.

2. Best Management Practices shall be used and the work is to be done by a person certified by the DEP. The BMP shall be kept in place until all work is completed.

3. The applicant shall file a DEP Permit by Rule for the removal of the existing structure.

4. All construction materials shall be disposed of out of Shapleigh.

5. 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.

Diane asked if the board needed the distance from the high water mark to the front of the structure? Madge didn’t believe that was necessary as the dimensions of the structure would be the same when moved back to the 20 foot mark as they are at this time. The benchmark will be the 20 foot mark.

Diane S. 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. Motion passed unanimously, 5 – 0.

Findings of Facts

1. The Owners of Shapleigh Tax Map 28, Lot 28 (16 17th Street) are Eric & Theresa Estochen of 44 Steinbeck Street, Tyngsboro, MA 01879.

2. The property is located in the Shoreland District and according to the Assessor’s office contains .50 acres. The survey done by LinePro Land Surveying, Joseph Stanley, MPLS #2453, states the property is 20,327 square feet in size.

3. The existing non-conforming structure sets wholly within 100 feet of the high water mark.

4. The applicants provided a site plan done by Surveyor Joseph Stanley of LinePro Land Surveying, of Shapleigh, Maine, which depicted the existing building, porch, concrete deck, walkway, retaining walls and stairs in relation to the 100 foot setback and current septic system location. Also on the plan were the site elevations and existing storage building.

5. The applicants provided a site plan depicting the size of the existing structure moved back and the approximate location of the existing septic system. The 100 foot setback was depicted on the plan along with the 20 foot mark to the septic system location.

6. The applicants provided a planting schedule which included the location of the proposed structure and deck, proposed retaining wall, existing retaining walls, proposed 14’ x 24’ garage, existing storage building, approximate location of the septic system and site elevations.

7. On file with the Code Enforcement Office is a copy of the Subsurface Wastewater Disposal System Application done by Kenneth Gardner, SE #73, dated 4/28/1997.

8. A notice was mailed to all abutters within 500 feet of the property, Wednesday, April 15, 2015.

9. A site inspection was conducted on April 28, 2015, prior to the planning board meeting.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 4/28/2015 Page 10 of 12

10. The board unanimously agreed to approve the Best Possible Location to move the existing non-conforming structure as depicted on the plan by Joseph Stanley, dated January 2, 2015, back to 20 feet from the existing leach field envelope, with conditions.

11. The conditions of the permit are as follows:

1. The applicant shall return to the Planning Board for approval of the revegetation plan prior to construction.

2. Best Management Practices shall be used and the work is to be done by a person certified by the DEP. The BMP shall be kept in place until all work is completed.

3. The applicant shall file a DEP Permit by Rule for the removal of the existing structure.

4. All construction materials shall be disposed of out of Shapleigh.

5. 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.

Roger A. asked if there were any additional questions? There were none.

Nothing further was discussed.

---------------------------------------

Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit – Enclose Concrete Ramp & Patio, Add New Handicap ‘Ramp & Addition, Increase Seating of Keepin It Local to 45 Seats & Increase Parking Area – Map 18, Lot 32-A (120 Emery Mills Road – Paul Muse, Applicant

Mr. Muse was in attendance for the review of the application along with Mary Letourneau, of Keepin it Local.

Along with the application, Mr. Muse provided a detailed description of the project. The description read in part:

We propose to enclose the existing 8’ x 38’ concrete ramp and patio, totaling 304 square feet and also to add a new handicap ramp and new addition totaling 406 square feet. The total of the new enclosed addition will be 710 square feet. The existing building is now 1,168 square feet and the total structure after the addition will be 1,878 square feet. This will cause the loss of parts of three (3) parking spaces. We would also like to amend the existing conditional use permit to handle the seating for customers inside and outside to 45.

We also propose not to place the landscape bins in the places originally requested and this is for the purpose of supplying the needed parking spaces in order to finish the project to meet town requirements. The total parking spaces now available with the new plan will be 24 with the ability to easily expand to more spaces if needed by using a different parking design.

Also provided was a diagram depicting 24 parking spaces, the existing structure location and addition, and the location of the septic system; a sketch of the existing building with proposed additions, indoor kitchen and dining area, bathroom location(s), etc.

Roger A. asked Mr. Muse to state what he was intending to do. Mr. Muse stated that they would like to add to the existing structure as proposed on the information provided. He stated that with the additions they would be very close to 10% lot coverage with structures.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 4/28/2015 Page 11 of 12

Roger A. stated the board would need a better parking plan than what was provided as parking spaces are 200 square feet in size and he didn’t believe the 12 spaces noted along one lot line, which was denoted as 112’ feet in length, would work as a typical parking space is 10 x 20 feet in size. He said based on this, to fit 12 parking spaces you would need 120 feet.

Mr. Muse thought they could possibly create parking spaces diagonally across the center of the parking lot but he realized they had to be mindful of traffic flow due to the takeout window traffic.

Roland L. asked if there was a certain number of spaces that would trigger a requirement for a handicap parking space? Mr. Muse stated there was a handicap space on site now. Roland asked if the dimensions of a handicap space was different than a regular space? Roger A. stated, no, they all have to be 200 square feet in size.

Roger A. asked if there would be any other changes? Mr. Muse stated that there were some concerns he had to address with CEO McDonough. The board stated that building issues were not anything they had to deal with.

Maggie M. asked about the seating of up to 45 seats, how many of those would be outside? Mr. Muse stated there would be a mixture of seats inside and outside. He provided a copy of a seating plan but stated this was not the final plan. The plan showed four tables inside. Ms. Letourneau agreed that there would be a mix of tables inside and out. She stated that they currently have picnic tables outside now. She wasn’t sure how the tables would be arranged at this time. Diane S. asked if there would be up to 45 seats available? Ms. Letourneau stated, yes. Diane asked how much space was devoted to retail space? Ms. Letourneau stated, 450 square feet. Diane asked if the rest was the dining area? Mr. Muse stated dining and kitchen area.

Roland L. asked if the existing septic system could handle that amount of seating? Mr. Muse provided a copy of an email from James Jacobsen of the Division of Environmental Healthy Drinking Water Program, Subsurface Wastewater Unit, which stated that allowing for 6 employees at 12 gpd each and 7 gpd per seat for use of single service tableware, the system (septic) can accommodate as many as 68 seats. Madge B. stated that CEO McDonough handled the wastewater. Mr. Muse noted the email stated they could have up to 68 seats according to the State.

Diane S. stated based on the Ordinance and her calculations they would need 20 parking spaces. 15 for the dining / seating, 2 for 2 employees and 3 for the retail area. She asked if there were 2 employees? Ms. Letourneau stated there were two at this time. Mr. Muse stated it would not be an issue to create 20 parking spaces. He also said he wanted to have the best traffic flow and again thought 20 spaces could be created.

Roger A. asked if there were any additional questions? There were none.

Roger A. stated a revised parking plan would be required for the next meeting.

A Public Hearing will be held at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 12th. A site inspection will be held at 6:30 p.m., members will meet on site.

Nothing further was discussed.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 4/28/2015 Page 12 of 12

Growth Permits

Part of Map 5, Lot 6A – 23rd Street Loop – New Home – GP #03-15

This is a legal lot of record, meeting the minimum lot size requirement and setbacks could be met.

************************

The Planning Board meeting ended at 8:20 p.m.

The next meeting will be held Tuesday, May 12th at 7:30 p.m.

Respectively submitted,

Barbara Felong

Land Use Secretary

planningboard@shapleigh.net