October 31, 2014  8:11 PM 
September 17, 2014
Other Notices
August 29, 2014
August 29, 2014
August 29, 2014



Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Members in attendance: Chairman Roger Allaire, Vice Chair Maggie Moody, Madge Baker, Roland Legere, as well as Barbara Felong, Land Use Secretary. Code Enforcement Officer Steven McDonough was also in attendance. Diane Srebnick, and Alternate Stephen Foglio were unable to attend.

Note: The minutes are not verbatim unless in quotes.


Public Hearing Began at 7:00 p.m.

Conditional Use Permit – Open Business Called Soup Shack – Map 1, Lot 41 (184 Emery Mills Road) – Justin Lowell, Applicant; Richard Gallant, Property Owner

Mr. Lowell was present for the public hearing.

Mr. Lowell’s application stated that he wanted to open a very small soup shack serving hardy soups and fare to patrons from approximately 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., 7 days a week. Mr. Lowell provided a sketch plan of the existing 20’ x 20’ building, parking area on both sides of the building, an area labeled ‘turn around’ and an area containing signage for ‘Earth Works Landscaping’. Also provided was the Subsurface Wastewater Disposal System Application dated 6/10/1993, done by Kenneth Gardner, SE #73 and a letter from Richard and Virginia Gallant, property owners, giving Mr. Lowell permission to operate his business out of the existing building located on 184 Emery Mills Road.

Roger A. began by asking Mr. Lowell to state for the record what he intended to do. There were no audience members, only board members at the hearing.

Mr. Lowell stated, “I’m going to be serving hot soups and home cooking. Try to satisfy the people around here during the cold months. Trying to make a buck.”

Roger A. asked what the number of seats would be? Mr. Lowell stated, “Approximately six inside.” Roger asked if there would be any outside? Mr. Lowell stated, “Two or three picnic tables.” Roger asked if only family members would be employed? Mr. Lowell stated, “Yes sir.”

Roger A. asked what the hours of operation would be? Mr. Lowell stated, “I have down on my application 9 a.m. to 2 a.m. but to begin with I’m going to open 11 to 7. During the winter months and during storms I’m hoping to stay open later to catch some of the first responders.” Roger asked if he was looking at nine in the morning until seven, seven days a week? Mr. Lowell believed to start it would be five days a week but if his step-daughter comes on board then she may make it longer by giving him a day off during the week. Roger explained whatever hours were approved, those are the hours he would be able to be open, so it would be best to have the largest window possible.

Mr. Lowell stated he wanted to apply for 9 a.m. thru 2 a.m., 7 days a week. He noted again, to begin with he would be open 11 a.m. to 7 p.m., five days a week.

Roger A. asked if a parking plan was submitted? Mr. Lowell stated he drew a plan as required on the application. He said he left an area on the plan showing where the parking spaces would be located. He said at the last meeting he was asked to draw the lines in denoting the individual parking spaces but he did not

Page 1 of 10

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 8/26/2014 Page 2 of 10

have the time to do that prior to this meeting. Mr. Lowell stated that he expected patrons to pull straight in to the area indicated on the map. Roger stated that if the application did get approved, there would be no backing onto Route 109 allowed. Mr. Lowell said there was a turn-around.

Madge B. asked if people serve food, did they have to have a bathroom? Mr. Lowell believed if you provide a place for people to sit down and eat, there does have to be a public rest room. He said there is one in the building. Madge thanked Mr. Lowell. She noted she couldn’t remember if there was a bathroom in the building.

Roger A. asked if there were any more questions? CEO McDonough asked if the sign for the previous business was still up? Mr. Lowell said, yes. Maggie M. noted the retaining wall was still up as well.

Roger A. stated because there were no additional questions, the public hearing was closed.

The Public Hearing closed at 7:10 p.m.


Planning board meeting began at 7:30 p.m.

The minutes from Tuesday, August 12, 2014, were accepted as read.


Conditional Use Permit – Open Business Called Soup Shack – Map 1, Lot 41 (184 Emery Mills Road) – Justin Lowell, Applicant; Richard Gallant, Property Owner

Mr. Lowell was present for the final review of his application. Board members did a site inspection on an individual basis, prior to this evenings meeting.

Madge B. began by asking if the board knew what the site distance was for this location? Barbara F. believed the last applicants were asked to provide site distances, so she would review their files. Roger A. agreed that it should be noted in the Letourneau’s file. Madge wanted it in the record.

Roger A. asked about possible litigation regarding existing signage on site. He said because the business itself wasn’t on site, CEO McDonough had written a letter (to the property owner Mr. Gallant, and copied to the previous business owner’s Mary and Joseph Letourneau who erected the sign) and there has been no response. Roger didn’t want to hold Mr. Lowell’s application up because of the sign issue. Madge B. said the sign issue and the new business were on the same property and there was going to be a legal action on the property. Madge asked Roger what he suggests be done? Roger said, “I would say we go to Mr. Gallant on the old signage due to the fact §105-47.A (Signs and billboards) would allow us to have, (2) ‘There shall be one sign attached to the building allowed per approved conditional use, each sign not to exceed 24 square feet in area.’ Of course there is greater than 24 with what he had (the Letourneau sign). Under (1)(a) ‘With an approved conditional use permit, two freestanding signs shall be permitted per lot. The freestanding signs may not exceed 32 square feet in area.” Roger believed Mr. Lowell’s signage would be reduced due to the fact there is already a sign on site.

Roger A. believed that because the business has not been operating at this location, the board can require the sign be removed because it would be a defunct business. Mr. Lowell stated that he was under the impression it was not a defunct business. Barbara F. stated the business was approved at another location and she asked Madge B. her opinion? Maggie M. agreed the business had moved.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 8/26/2014 Page 3 of 10

Note: Keepin it Local and Earthworks Landscaping was approved to move to Map 18, Lot 32A (120 Emery Mills Road on March 11, 2014. The approval was as follows:

A notice was mailed to all abutters within 500 feet of the property. A public hearing was held by board members on Tuesday, March 11, 2014. After careful consideration and a review of all material presented to the Board, as well as the pertinent Ordinances including 105-73 “Standards Applicable to Conditional Uses”, the motion was made to approve the Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit to open Keepin it Local and Earth Works Landscaping at Map 18, Lot 32A, per the plans provided with the following conditions:

The hours of operation shall be 5 a.m. thru 10 p.m., 7 days a week.

The menu for the cafe will be as provided with the application.

Maximum yardage of landscaping materials shall not exceed 400 cubic yards. There shall be no loose piles of material on site, all shall be stored within a concrete bin.

Best Management Practices for soil erosion shall be maintained on site.

Solid waste / refuse shall be disposed of in the dumpster located on the adjacent property.

The drive-thru window shall be for prepared foods only in order to keep traffic flowing smoothly and quickly.

There shall be no parking on Route 109 at any time.

Any changes to the above stated conditions shall have to come back before the Planning Board.

CEO McDonough stated, “In the State of Maine you cannot have an off-premise sign. That constitutes a billboard and billboards are illegal in the State of Maine. He said the reason they had that sign in the first place is that was his office.” (July 25, 2012 Joseph Letourneau was approved to use the existing building on Map 1, Lot 41 for office space for Earthworks Landscaping, with hours of operation being 7:00 a.m. thru 9:00 p.m., 7 days a week.) He said, “They are not there anymore, so now it is an off-premise sign and off premise signs are illegal.”

CEO McDonough stated again that he was not saying the business was not functioning anymore, it just is not there. Roger A. agreed it was in a different location and as CEO McDonough stated, you can’t have the sign more than 1000 feet away from the business. He said the sign has to be moved and noted that if it isn’t moved it will hurt Mr. Lowell’s ability to have signage as the size of his sign will be reduced.

Mr. Lowell asked if he couldn’t do anything until the sign issue was resolved? Roger A. said the board could allow Mr. Lowell to do what he was proposing and at the same time try to get the existing sign removed.

Roland L. asked if the issue was just the sign or the hardscaping as well? Roger A. stated that it was both. Maggie M. thought it had a setback issue. CEO McDonough stated the only reason the hardscaping was allowed as he interpreted it as being part of the signage. He stated that now that the signage is no longer legal it has to be removed too, because otherwise it is a structure and it doesn’t meet setbacks. Roger agreed. Madge B. believed any action on the sign was against the landowner. Roger and CEO McDonough thought that would be true. Madge stated the approval of a business runs with the property, so she agreed that the board could approve a different use. She asked if the board approves the different use, does the board lose the ability to force the landowner to take some action? CEO McDonough believed you lose some leverage but didn’t think you totally throw out your authority. Madge agreed it will continue to be an illegal structure on the property and the Town can still take legal action for the violation.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 8/26/2014 Page 4 of 10

Roland L. asked when Mr. Lowell was hoping to get his business going? Mr. Lowell stated that he had been in the building since July of this year and has been working on the interior. He said he would like to open as soon as possible. Roland thought if there would be a fall start date, the board would have more time to leverage Mr. Gallant to take the appropriate steps necessary to rectify the situation but Mr. Lowell wants to get started sooner. Mr. Lowell stated that he would do anything he could to help the board out. CEO McDonough stated they didn’t want to hold him up and couldn’t think of anything Mr. Lowell could do to help. Madge B. asked Mr. Lowell if he was already paying rent? Mr. Lowell stated that he had put a deposit down.

Roger A. said he didn’t have any issue with Mr. Lowell. Roger noted that even though it was two businesses it was the same person running both.

Barbara F. stated that she realized it was the landowners issue because the permit runs with the property and there is an off-premise sign which isn’t allowed but isn’t the actual sign owner at fault as well because their business was approved for another location and it’s advertising their business, therefore, why is it only and issue for the landowner, Mr. Gallant? Madge B. said the sign was issued to the business, not to Mr. Gallant. CEO McDonough stated he didn’t know the legal answer. Roger A. thought the landowner is allowing the person to have a sign for a business down the street, so it is still the landowner that would be liable, in his opinion. He added that the sign now actually belongs to the landowner.

Maggie M. thought that it was too bad the walls were a structure because without a sign you could use that for the outdoor eating area. Mr. Lowell noted there was a fire pit located there as well.

CEO McDonough stated that had the business owners come to him asking if they needed a permit for the retaining wall and fire pit and gotten a permit for it, he would have had them meet the setbacks so it could stay on the property, but they did not. He said he was confident it didn’t meet setbacks to the road but admitted he had not measured it. He said a portion may meet setbacks and perhaps a portion can stay in place but he didn’t know at this time.

Madge B. stated that in any case the sign has to be removed. Roland L. said he felt a notice should be sent to the Letourneau’s (owners of the signage). CEO McDonough stated the letter asking for removal of the sign was also sent to the Letourneau’s, along with the property owner. Maggie M. asked if he stated it might hold up Mr. Lowell’s approval? CEO McDonough said it stated the application would be tabled if the sign wasn’t removed. Maggie thought that should have put some urgency to the issue. CEO McDonough agreed.

Mr. Lowell asked if he could have a sign if he was approved this evening? Roger A. said the size of the sign would be reduced because the Letourneau’s are using some of what is allowed at this time. Madge B. stated that the Town still had to go after the illegal sign. Roger didn’t want to hold Mr. Lowell’s application up as ransom. Madge agreed.

Madge B. asked Barbara F. if she found the site distances? Barbara stated that the Letourneau’s stated the site distance facing toward Acton was 600 feet and facing toward Sanford was 430 feet.

Roger A. began reviewing the Basic Performance Standards.

105-21 – Traffic. The minimum required in this location is 245 feet, the site distance as stated above exceeds the minimum and maximum (350’) required.

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

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 8/26/2014 Page 5 of 10

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 building at this time. Roger read the ordinance requirement to Mr. Lowell, so he would be aware of the lighting requirement.

105-26 – Stormwater runoff. There are no changes being made to the existing structure or property that would cause a stormwater problem. The building and site have been in existence for over 50 years with no issues to date.

105-27 – Erosion control. There are no changes being made to the existing structure or property that would cause an erosion problem.

105-28 – Setbacks and screening. The existing structure is well screened from surrounding properties at the rear of the structure, additional screening could be hazardous by obstructing the view leaving the parking area.

105-29 – Explosive materials. There shall be none on site and none to be generated.

105-30 – Water quality. There is no waste or hazardous material being stored outside. There is an existing State approved septic system on site adequate for the size of the building.

105-31 – Preservation of landscape; landscaping of parking and storage areas. There are no changes being made to the site, all the existing has been previously approved.

105-32 - Relation of proposed building to the environment. The existing building fits in well with the surrounding area.

105-33 – Refuse disposal. Refuse will be removed by the applicant nightly.

105-34 – Access control on Route 109. There is an existing approved entrance onto Route 109 at this time, so no DOT permit is required. There shall be no backing onto Route 109 from the parking area.

105-43 – Off-street parking and loading. The existing structure has more than adequate parking for the size of the building and number of patrons / employees per the parking plan provided. There shall be a maximum of six seats inside the structure, up to 3 average sized picnic tables outside the structure, and a total of two employees on site. Parking areas shall be 10’ x 20 feet in size with a total of 10 on site.

105-46 – Sanitary provisions. There is an existing State approved septic system on site adequate for the size of the building. There is an existing bathroom in the structure that will be made available for the public.

105-47– Signs and billboards. Any signage shall be obtained through the Code Enforcement Office.

The plan was changed to show the parking plan and location of the picnic tables. The picnic tables were placed at the rear of the building so they did not impede the parking area.

Maggie M. thought it would be a good idea to place boulders between the picnic tables and the parking area for added protection. Mr. Lowell wasn’t opposed to the idea.

Roger A. then reviewed §105-73 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.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 8/26/2014 Page 6 of 10

1) The use will not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, birds or other wildlife habitat. It will not, the property is not near the water and no changes are being made on site to disturb wildlife habitat.

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. It is, the Comprehensive Plan encourages businesses along State Route 109.

4) Traffic access to the site is safe. It is, the site distances meet the minimum and maximum required as supplied by the previous applicant’s. No one shall be allowed to back out onto Route 109.

5) The site design is in conformance with all municipal flood hazard protection regulations. It is, this location is not in a flood zone and no changes are being made on site to affect stormwater.

6) Adequate provision for the disposal of all wastewater and solid waste has been made. There is. A State approved septic system is on site to handle the size of the building. All waste produced by the business shall be removed by the applicant. Note: Should an amendment be needed for an increase in clientele creating an increased need for parking spaces, CEO McDonough asked that the board also re-address waste disposal.

7) Adequate provision for the transportation, storage and disposal of any hazardous materials has been made. N/A

8) A stormwater drainage system capable of handling fifty-year storm without adverse impact on adjacent properties has been designed. There are no changes being made to the site to affect stormwater. The existing structure has been in existence for over 50 years with no issues.

9) Adequate provisions to control soil erosion and sedimentation have been made. There are no changes being made to the site to create an erosion problem.

10) There is adequate water supply to meet the demands of the proposed use and for fire protection purposes. There is, a fire hydrant is located a short distance from the building at the Emery Mills Dam.

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. The existing vegetation buffers adjoining properties and shall not be removed.

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

Roger A. stated the Conditions of Approval are as follows:

1) The hours of operation shall be 9:00 a.m. thru 2:00 a.m., 7 days a week.

2) Backing a vehicle out onto State Route 109 shall not be allowed at any time.

3) The number of vehicles to be parked on site at any one time shall be 10 in total. Should additional parking have to be addressed in the future with an amendment to the permit, waste disposal shall also be re-addressed.

4) There shall be no overnight storage of refuse outside of the structure.

Madge M. made the motion to approve the application to open a business called the Soup Shack in the existing structure on Tax Map 1, Lot 41, as discussed during tonight’s meeting and per the plan presented, with the above stated conditions. Roland L. 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. Members voted for approval, 4 – 0. The motion passed unanimously.

Nothing else was discussed.


Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 8/26/2014 Page 7 of 10

Conditional Use Permit – Replace Retaining Walls & Stairs – Map 40, Lot 38 (19 Osprey Lane) – Kristina & Jared Buzzell, Applicants

The applicants were not present for the review of the application. Barbara F. believed the applicant’s may not return based on what the board said was discussed at the site inspection.

The board members agreed stating they were under the impression the applicants just wanted to be sure they could replace the structures prior to purchasing the property. CEO McDonough stated it was an allowed use.

Note: Steve Foglio emailed Barbara F. on 8/28/14 to state, ‘The Buzzells are going to drop the whole thing.”

Nothing further was discussed.


Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit – Public Sand / Salt Shed – Map 7, Lot 5 (Shapleigh Corner Road) – Town of Shapleigh, Applicant

Selectman Mike Perro and Selectman Bill Mageary were present along with Road Commissioner Dick Goodwin.

The Selectmen presented, along with the application, a set of plans which depicted the existing Town sand/salt shed and the proposed Public sand/salt shed for the residents of Shapleigh, showing views from both sides of the structure; the actual framing plan for the structure; and a site plan showing the location of the existing sand/salt shed on the property and the proposed addition. Also on the site plan Route 11 was depicted, several stone barriers, and an area to be paved.

Selectman Perro began by stating the Town was in the process of having the contractor that drafted the plans presented, make several revisions to the plan. He said that although he didn’t have the revised plans, he could tell the Planning Board what the changes would be. The loading door on the plan was depicted as being 8’ x 7’ in size, Selectman Perro stated the opening would instead be 9’ x 7’ in size. He said that on the last page the design for the driveway would change somewhat as well.

Roger A. asked if the door opening was going to be 7 feet in height? RC Goodwin stated yes, the area was just to dump sand, so 7 feet was adequate for what they would be using it for. He added there would only be a bucket on the machine to push the sand around. Selectman Perro agreed stated there wasn’t going to be any equipment driving thru it.

Roger A. wanted to know how wide the entryway onto Route 11 would be. He noted it could not exceed 26 feet. He believed the plan showed it being 20 feet in width plus the aprons, again noting with the aprons it could not exceed 26 feet.

Roland L. said there was going to be a new driveway cut from Route 11 to the structure. Selectman Perro said, yes. Selectman Perro said when they originally began the sand/salt shed process, they had spoken to D.O.T. discussing this separate entrance and they were told by D.O.T. it was ok to put the driveway in this location. Roger A. agreed that during the initial discussion it was stated they wanted an area to put sand/salt for public access but didn’t want the public in the area where the Town trucks were loaded or in any other location.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 8/26/2014 Page 8 of 10

Selectman Perro stated that because the gateway will be open during storms, the Town is going to put signage up that reflects where the Town vehicles are going to be and where residential sand is located. They didn’t want people driving where they are not supposed to.

Roger A. reviewed the original plan for the Town sand / salt shed and it was noted on the plan there would be a ‘Dense evergreen edge, six feet or more in height at maturity, to be planted as required in the Town of Shapleigh Zoning Ordinance Chapter 105-28’. Roger said that this was never done and asked if it was going to be done when this project was completed. He wanted to be able to set a date of completion for this project. Selectman Perro said they could set a date but wanted to know what the reason was that this was being required? He said he understood it was already required and if they had to do it they would, but he didn’t know why it was required in the first place. He said there are multiple other businesses that have gone in since this ordinance was put in place that do not have those things. He also said, “Our concern is we do not want it, in thinking about it afterwards; at the time there was a problem with dust with the business next door and that kind of stuff. That is no longer a problem; the ground is pretty well solid up and there’s not a dust issue there. Having that dense evergreen hedge in there, that is six feet in length, prohibits us from being able to have security visibility down there; and having that, so no one can see in there isn’t necessarily a good thing.” Roger A. said it was mentioned during the review but the Ordinance specifically states, ‘Exposed storage areas, exposed machinery installation, sand and gravel extraction operations and areas used for storage or collection of discarded automobiles, auto parts, metal or other articles of salvage or refuse shall have sufficient setbacks and screening to provide a visual buffer sufficient to minimize their adverse impact on other land uses within the development area and surrounding properties (a dense evergreen hedge, six feet or more in height). All such plantings shall be maintained as an effective visual screen; plants which die shall be replaced within one growing season. Where a potential safety hazard to children would be likely to arise, physical screening sufficient to deter small children from entering the premises shall be provided and be maintained in good condition.’

Selectman Perro stated, “That’s the Ordinance, that’s not the conditions.” Roger A. stated, “Yes, that is what that refers to (the notation on the approved plan).” Roger said the approved plan specifically refers to this section of the Ordinance. Selectman Perro said, “I don’t disagree that it exists in the Ordinance but what I do disagree with, is, there had been multiple businesses since that ordinance had taken place, and I believe it was 1988, and since that has taken place that haven’t had to do that. And haven’t done it. Boonies is a prime example of it, there are multiple examples of it around town of that. And I could understand this if we had some kind of an operation there that needed to be screened but my concern is a security issue in regards to having that visibility. It’s so much more secure a location with being able to have people see down in there, and it’s not an eyesore, and we spent a lot of money on that building and it’s not a horrible looking place. We prefer to not have to have it done. I understand it’s not on this docket but maybe we can revisit later on.”

Roger A. stated, “It isn’t but what happens is, it does affect any amendment to a conditional use. That’s the reason why I bring it up.” RC Goodwin stated that he thought it didn’t have to be evergreen but could be something natural? Roger said when the plan was approved, it was approved per the plan and it is specifically written on the plan (dense evergreen hedge). RC Goodwin said the natural plants are growing well. Roger said he didn’t disagree it was growing in. Roger said because there was an amendment to the original plan, the board had to review the original plan. Madge B. agreed and noted the board can amend the original conditions since the original permit is being amended. She thought the board should review this and perhaps amend the original approval and anything else that needs to be.

Selectman Perro stated, “It’s not like we are changing the use. We told you when we put in this facility this was going to be part of it. We made attempts with the landowner next door to the old facility to have a plan to be able to move to this location. So this has been in planning since we were originally engineering this

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 8/26/2014 Page 9 of 10

process. We just didn’t do it at that time. It is not like a change to a change of use. It’s just another phase.” Roger A. agreed and said that is why it is an amendment. He added that all the original conditions all come in to play, so this is the right time to be talking about this. Selectman Perro said it would be nice to make the

change so the Town isn’t locked into it. He said when they originally put the facility in, they knew they were going to make a change for this process and they also knew there might be a security problem, as we talked

about possibly putting a fence around the perimeter or across the front if there was a security issue. But we aren’t going to throw out the money if we don’t need to. At present it doesn’t look like the Town has to go thru the expense of putting up a perimeter fence. He added that he wasn’t sure exactly where the public sand/salt shed was going to be, so the Town didn’t put up the hedges because they didn’t want to have to tear them out later.

Roger A. agreed with Selectman Perro but wanted to address all of this now. Selectman Perro was hoping this wouldn’t delay the process. Madge B. and Roger A. didn’t think that it would. Selectman Perro asked if

there was anything further they needed to do for the next meeting in regards to amending the plan. He said again he liked being able to see what was going on on site.

Roger A. thought the vegetation that is growing up now could be considered the buffer / screen. He noted the Ordinance says ‘shall’ and not ‘may’, so something has to be put into place.

Madge B. asked if the board was going to schedule a public hearing? Roger A. stated yes, a public hearing will be scheduled for Tuesday, September 9, 2014. A Notice to Abutters shall be mailed as well.

Madge B. asked if there were some stakes up showing the location? Selectman Perro stated there were stakes up but they are showing the original plan. She said she wanted to know where the entrance would be. Selectman Perro showed Madge where the entrance would be by using the plan. Madge asked the distance from the existing entrance? Selectman Perro stated, “230 feet from center to center.” Madge said, ok. Selectman Perro stated line of sight was not an issue from either entrance.

Selectman Perro asked if the Selectmen needed to file anything for the public hearing with respect to the buffer issue? Roger A. stated, “We’ll just add that one, that we are going to address that with this amendment, then we can put this to bed.” Madge noted that the Planning Board was not arguing with Selectman’s Perro issue with the buffer and security. Roger added that this issue was discussed at the initial review but because the Ordinance stated it was required, it is why it was required. He stated the engineer added this to the plan based on Shapleigh’s Ordinance requirement.

Roland L. stated that at the time there was a considerable visual impact. He said not only was it in the Ordinance but there was a reaction to the fact you had this area that had been leveled. Madge B. agreed. Selectman Perro said it is no longer a dust issue.

Roger A. stated again there would be a Public Hearing at 7:00 p.m. and then it will be brought back up at the regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. Board members can do a site inspection on an individual basis.

Nothing further was discussed.

Growth Permits

There are Growth Permits Available.


Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 8/26/2014 Page 10 of 10

All supporting documentation, applications, etc. can be reviewed at the Town Hall during regular operating hours.

Planning Board meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.

Respectively submitted,

Barbara Felong, Land Use Secretary