August 23, 2017  7:11 PM 
June 27, 2017
Other Notices
May 10, 2017
May 01, 2017



Tuesday, May 23, 2017

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

Note: Ann Harris sat in as a regular meeting this evening.


The planning board meeting started at 7:30 p.m.

The minutes from Tuesday May 9, 2017 were accepted as read.


Best Possible Location – Add Bedroom and Closet to Existing Structure, Remove Bedroom & Chimney – Map 30, Lot 66 (35 Hickory Street) – Debbie Powers, Applicant

Ms. Powers was not present for the review of the application, therefore, the application was tabled until the next meeting.


Minor Subdivision of Land (3 Lots) – Map 11, Lot 23H (Gray & Newfield Road) – Nick Richardson, Applicant; Joseph Stanley, Authorized Agent

Mr. Richardson was present for the review of the application, along with John Hutchins. Mr. Hutchins works with Mr. Stanley (the authorized agent) who was unable to attend the meeting.

The subdivision application listed Nickolas Richardson of 41 Newfield Road as the applicant and property owner of Map 11, Lot 23H. The property contains 11.42 acres and the applicant proposes a 3 lot subdivision, along with selling 2.20 acres to an abutter. The proposed subdivision name is Gray Road Estates. The lot is in the general purpose district, with an existing use as a wood lot. There are no proposed restrictive covenants. Each lot will have its own individual well as a water supply; individual septic tank; and there is no proposed fire protection beyond the Shapleigh Fire Department. There are no streets, recreation areas or common lands being proposed. There were no waivers of the subdivision requirements listed on the application.

Along with the application, provided was a copy of the Quit Claim Deed granted to Nickolas Richardson, filed at York County Registry of Deeds on April 11, 2017, Book 17451, Page 542-543; Test Pit data taken in four locations, done by Kenneth Gardner, SE #23, done on May 3, 2017; and a subdivision plan entitled ‘Gray Road Estates’, done by Joseph Stanley, PLS #2453, of LinePro Land Surveying, LLC, dated May 15, 2017.

Roger A. asked the applicant to explain to the board what his intentions were. Mr. Hutchins began by stating they were proposing a three lot subdivision on Gray and Newfield Road in Shapleigh. Board members looked at the plan provided. Mr. Hutchins stated there was also going to be a lot conveyed to an abutter. Mr. Hutchins stated the plan was preliminary. He noted there were no wetlands on the property.

CEO McDonough asked about the property being conveyed. He asked if it was going to be joined to the

Page 1 of 6

Shapleigh Planning Board Meeting – May 23, 2017 Page 2 of 6

abutter’s property? He stated that it had to be in order for it to be exempt from subdivision review. Mr. Hutchins said he was not sure. Mr. Richardson stated that he purposely left it so there wouldn’t be enough road frontage to create an additional lot, he wasn’t aware that it had to be joined. Mr. Hutchins thought the lot only had to be non-conforming in order to be exempt. He also believed that for subdivision purposes it would automatically get joined to the abutter’s lot. CEO McDonough stated that this lot is conforming, so in order to exempt it from subdivision it had to be joined to the neighboring lot. (Note: There appears to be 123+ feet on Gray Road and 180 feet on Newfield Road.) Mr. Hutchins stated that he was not aware you could combine the road frontage on both roads to get the road frontage. CEO McDonough and Roger A. both stated that you could, so this was a conforming lot. Mr. Hutchins stated that in light of this, they would create a deed that joined both lots when it is conveyed.

CEO McDonough asked if the property is joined, would it say that it couldn’t be divided again? Mr. Hutchins thought you would have to wait for five years. CEO McDonough asked if it said that in the ordinance? Mr. Hutchins believed it would be an amendment to the subdivision. CEO McDonough did not believe that was true if the board called the lot exempt. CEO McDonough was concerned that they would be circumnavigating the subdivision law. Roger A. thought that at this time this is a 4 lot subdivision because it has not been conveyed to the neighbor yet. He noted that it was still a minor subdivision, as it was less than five lots. Mr. Richardson stated that he had not conveyed it yet because he wanted to wait to see if he had to do something different after the board reviewed the plan, such as move a property line.

Roger A. asked why the lot was 23H, when was it divided? Mr. Richardson stated that it was more than five years ago by Pat Frasier. CEO McDonough agreed, as he remembered the division.

CEO McDonough believed to have it exempt from subdivision, the lot would have to be joined to the neighboring property. Ann H. asked if he could keep the lot and just do a 4-lot subdivision? Mr. Richardson stated he did not want to do that because of an existing house and shed, it is very close to the property line. He said the neighbor approached him and asked about doing this.

Roger A. said at this time there are no waivers listed. So he asked if there would be granite monuments and would they be using underground power? Mr. Richardson said he would have underground power for two lots and overhead for one. Mr. Hutchins said they would put in a waiver for granite monuments, as he believed that is what Mr. Stanley would ask for. Ann H. asked if it was surveyed out? Mr. Hutchins stated that the pins had not been set yet.

Roger A. asked if there would be a location for the underground power on the plan? Mr. Richardson asked if the line itself had to be located? Roger said, yes. Mr. Richardson asked if they just needed where the transformer pad would go? Mr. Hutchins said yes, and there had to be an easement on the plan for it. Mr. Richardson said one lot would have overhead power. CEO McDonough and Roger said Mr. Richardson would have to ask for a waiver for that one lot.

Mr. Hutchins asked if underground power was required for a minor subdivision? Roger said, yes, so the wire will be there when someone buys the property. Mr. Hutchins said they would show the easement for the underground and a waiver for the one lot. Roger said that they can show the easement but there had to be power on site on the lot. Mr. Richardson asked if it had to be on the lot before the plan is approved? Roger said that if it isn’t on site, then there would have to be a bond or money in place to cover the cost of installation until it is available.

Roger A. asked about fire protection, what was their intention? Mr. Hutchins asked if the houses had to have sprinklers? The board noted you could have a cistern in lieu of sprinklers. Mr. Richardson stated that Ross Corner Fire Department was within a mile of the lots. CEO McDonough stated that that did not mean

Shapleigh Planning Board Meeting – May 23, 2017 Page 3 of 6

they had a water supply to hook up to. He asked where the nearest water was? Mr. Richardson said there was a hydrant within 2 miles. Roger stated that they could ask the Fire Chief if he wanted some method of fire protection on site of if he would waive the requirement due to the location of a water supply. The board would need it in writing.

CEO McDonough went back to the discussion on the bond for the electric. He told Mr. Richardson he would need to get an estimate of what it would cost to put in electric access on site and the board would want a bond to cover that cost.

Roger A. stated that it had to be noted on the plan somewhere, that no dug wells were allowed. Mr. Richardson asked if it had to be in the deed? Roger said it had to be a deed restriction. Mr. Richardson asked what the purpose of that was? Roger said that in the ordinance it stated that ‘dug wells shall be permitted only if it is demonstrated that it is not economically feasible to develop other groundwater sources and shall be constructed to prevent infiltration of surface water into the well. Unless otherwise permitted by the Board, the subdivider shall prohibit dug wells by deed restrictions and a note on the plan.’ §89-30.B(2)(a)

Roger A. then read §89-30.B(2)(c) which read as follows: The subdivider shall construct ponds and dry hydrants to provide for adequate water storage for fire-fighting purposes. An easement shall be granted to the municipality granting access to the dry hydrants where necessary. Fire ponds and dry hydrants must meet the specifications of the Shapleigh Fire Department. Roger said that if Fire Chief Romano says that he has no issue with providing no extra fire protection the board can look at a waiver for this section.

Ann H. asked if each lot would have their own septic? Roger A. said, yes.

Roger A. asked about the USGS (United States Geological Survey) if it was at 15 minutes and Mr. Hutchins stated, 20. Roger said the area was fairly flat, so he saw no issue with this.

Roger A. asked if they would have sidewalks? Mr. Hutchins said they would be waiving that.

Roger A. asked about stormwater management design standards. Mr. Hutchins asked if they could waive that. Roger noted the area was very flat. CEO McDonough said if they waived it, there needed to be a statement as to why. Mr. Hutchins said he could also put the standard erosion control standards on the plan.

Madge B. asked if the driveways would need culverts? Mr. Richardson said he had already spoken with Road Commissioner Burnell and he said it was not required because it was flat in that location. CEO McDonough told Mr. Richardson to have RC Burnell put that in writing for the board. Madge said there must not be any ditches here. Mr. Richardson said there was no need for ditches in this location. Madge and CEO McDonough asked Mr. Richardson to get something from RC Burnell stating no culverts or ditching would be required, and that no stormwater modification was required.

Roger A. said a site inspection could be done before the next meeting. Board members agreed to meet at the town hall on Wednesday, June 14th at 6:00 p.m.

Mr. Richardson asked if he had to have power physically on site or just have it on the plan where it would be going? Roger A. said that if the transformers are energized, so they can be utilized by the property owner then no bond would be required, but otherwise a bond is needed. CEO McDonough stated that for the purpose of subdivision approval, what the board wants is what bringing it in will cost and a bond for that amount of money. Roger agreed. He said if it goes in ahead of time, a bond will not be needed. No one believed the power company would work that quickly.

Shapleigh Planning Board Meeting – May 23, 2017 Page 4 of 6

Roger A. stated that in three weeks there wouldn’t be approval. He said in three weeks, once all the new information is received, then a public hearing will be scheduled. He said also after the site inspection, something new could be brought up. He reminded Mr. Richardson the lot going to the abutter had to be merged with his property prior to approval.

Roger A. stated that for the site inspection the area did not have to be pinned but it should be flagged, so the board knows what they are looking at. Both in the front and in the back. Mr. Hutchins asked when they would do the site inspection. The board stated, Wednesday, June 14th, due to voting being on the 13th for school budget.

Nothing further was discussed.


Best Possible Location – Replace Existing Structure – Map 26, Lot 40 (7 Buccaneer’s Way) – Bradford Sweet, Applicant

Bill Hutchins represented the applicant, as LinePro Land Surveying LLC was also working on this project.

Along with the application, provided was an email stating that Dustin Morrill, Joe Stanley and John Hutchins (all from LinePro Land Surveying LLC) would be representing him at the Shapleigh Planning Board meetings when necessary.

Also provided was a plan showing a proposed Best Practical Location for Bradford Sweet, done by Joseph Stanley, PLS #2453, of LinePro Land Surveying LLC, dated May 15, 2017. The plan depicted the existing structure location, deck, two areas called concrete, the gravel driveway, proposed septic location, a stone retaining wall, wood retaining wall, existing trees, elevation contours, the 100 foot setback to the high water mark, as well as the proposed best practical location of the new structure. The new structure and existing structure also had the side setbacks depicted on the plan, distance to the high water mark and distance to Buccaneer’s Way.

The application detailed description reads: Best Possible Location for Camp Rebuild

Roger A. asked if Mr. Hutchins wanted to speak about what they wanted to do. Mr. Hutchins stated that this was Best Practical Location. Mr. Hutchins said the plan shows the existing footprint of the structure and deck and they pushed it back within 15 feet of the power line easement. This moved the structure from about 28 feet from the high water mark to 52 feet from the high water mark at the closest point. He said with respect to the side setback they split the difference to make it more centered on the property, at 9.6 feet from the side lines.

CEO McDonough asked where the 15 foot setback rule come from. Mr. Hutchins stated that was a CMP rule (Central Maine Power). CEO McDonough asked if it was a single residential line, he noted that he has seen CMP lift a residential line and the house was moved under it. He wanted them to get it in writing from CMP that this 15 foot easement is required.

Ann H. asked if the deck and concrete was being removed? Mr. Hutchins said the concrete behind the house was coming out, the walkway was staying. The deck is being removed as well. Roland L. asked if the walkway was concrete? Mr. Hutchins showed on the plan what was concrete and stairs.

Roger A. asked if they could get 10 feet on each side vs. 9.5 feet? Mr. Hutchins said this is the existing structure moved back. CEO McDonough agreed you move the existing structure back but he noted that on

the plan it appeared you could straighten the structure out and possibly get 10 feet on each side. Mr.

Shapleigh Planning Board Meeting – May 23, 2017 Page 5 of 6

Hutchins agreed it was possible, he didn’t create the plan. Ann H., looking at the plan, thought they placed it

as they did due to the CMP easement which was at an angle. Ann thought it possibly could be 10 and 10 if they moved it slightly.

Ann H. asked if they were going to put a foundation under it? Mr. Hutchins believed they wanted a full foundation and the 30% expansion as well.

Roger A. asked if any trees, more than the two that were directly in the same place as the proposed location, would be removed? Mr. Hutchins thought the one next to the property line would have to come down as well, as it probably would not survive.

CEO McDonough asked about the 30% expansion, where would they propose to do it? He wanted it known that if there is a restriction to the CMP easement there would never be able to be any construction going back toward the easement. Mr. Hutchins agreed. CEO McDonough told Mr. Hutchins they may want to look into the easement issue, so they have more options for expansion. Going up may not work due to the new shoreland zoning restrictions. Looking at the plan, they discussed his options from what he had on the plan.

Roger A. stated that when the board approves the footprint, you have to stay within those numbers. CEO McDonough agreed, no closer to the setbacks than the existing. Mr. Hutchins understood and there was a small area, because the structure is not perfectly square, that could be added to.

Roger A. said there needed to be a planting plan. Where new trees will be planted and what will be done to the area where the existing structure is being removed from. CEO McDonough wanted Mr. Hutchins aware that the approved plan will get recorded at the York Country Registry of Deeds, this is a new DEP / Shoreland Zoning rule. Mr. Hutchins asked if it was the new footprint. CEO McDonough said that it wasn’t the Planning Board approval but the 30% expansion has to get recorded. Mr. Hutchins asked if it had to be a Mylar? CEO McDonough said not a Mylar, just the final plan for the expansion. Barbara F. noted that it had to be a notarized plan. CEO McDonough stated that for other drawings he had created paperwork that could be notarized. CEO McDonough stated that whatever the final plan is, that will have to be notarized and recorded.

Mr. Hutchins stated there was no volume calculation anymore. CEO McDonough said, correct.

Roger A. said the site inspection will be done on Wednesday, June 14, 2017, at approximately 7:00 p.m. after the first site inspection that evening. A notice to abutters will be mailed as well.

Roger A. reiterated that the board will need to have on the plan what will be done to all the disturbed areas, and the time frame for starting and completion. The person doing the work needs to be certified by the DEP in erosion control. Madge noted again that the area where the building is being removed from needs to have something done in that area, a replanting plan to control erosion.

Nothing further was discussed.




Madge Baker nominated Roger Allaire as Chairman of the Planning Board.

Maggie Moody 2nd the motion.

Shapleigh Planning Board Meeting – May 23, 2017 Page 6 of 6

Roger Allaire accepted the nomination.

All members were in favor. Roger Allaire will remain Chairman of the Planning Board.

Madge Baker nominated Maggie Moody as Vice Chairman of the Planning Board.

Maggie thanked Madge but did not wish to be Vice Chairman any longer.

Madge Baker nominated Roland Legere as Vice Chairman of the Planning Board.

Roland stated that he did not have any intention of being Vice Chairman.

The Board decided to table the decision for Vice Chairman for the next meeting when perhaps all members will be present.

Nothing further was discussed.


Growth Permits

Map 40, Lot 30A (Granny Kent Pond Road) – New Home

Board members reviewed the lot and it is a legally created existing lot of record. GP #05-17 was assigned.


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

The next meeting will be held Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 7:30 p.m. The Planning Board meets the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month unless it falls on a holiday or Election Day. Any scheduled public hearing takes place at 7:00 p.m. prior to the scheduled meeting. Also, should there be a cancellation due to a storm event, holiday or Election, the meeting will typically be held the following Wednesday, also at 7:30 p.m. Please contact the Land Use Secretary if there is a question in scheduling, 207-636-2844, x404.

Respectively submitted,

Barbara Felong,

Land Use Secretary