February 26, 2015  7:24 PM 
February 02, 2015
Other Notices
November 12, 2014
November 12, 2014
November 10, 2014



Tuesday, December 9, 2014

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


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


Public Hearing started at 6:08 p.m.

Review of Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance and Growth Ordinance

Roger read the changes to each. The changes are as follows (new language in bold, language to be removed crossed out):

1. Proposed Zoning Amendment to §105-15 & §105-19H, change to the definition of building height.

§105-15. Definitions.

BUILDING HEIGHT – The vertical distance between the highest point of the roof and the average grade of ground adjoining the building. and the lowest ground grade adjoining the building.


Making a change to §105-15 also requires a change to the definition in §105-19.H to read as follows:

Building Height. No building shall exceed 2 ½ stories or 35 feet in height, as measured between the mean original grade at the downhill side of the structure the lowest ground grade adjoining the building and the highest point of the structure. Exception: In public, semipublic, institutional and agricultural buildings, a height not to exceed 40 feet is allowed in the General Purpose District only, and must be in compliance with NFPA 101. Features of building and structures, such as chimneys, towers, ventilators and spires, may exceed 35 feet in height but shall be set back from the nearest lot line a distance not less than the height of such feature or structure, unless a greater setback is required by other provisions of this chapter.

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


2. Proposed Zoning Amendment to §105-31 ‘Preservation of landscape; landscaping of parking and storage areas’.

Additions in Bold; Language to be Removed, Crossed Out.

Page 1 of 7

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 1/13/2015 Page 2 of 7

§105-31 ‘Preservation of landscape; landscaping of parking and outdoor storage areas.’

A. The landscape shall be preserved in its natural state, insofar as practical as determined by the PB, by minimizing tree natural vegetation removal, and any grade changes shall be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas. Parking lots shall be landscaped with shrubbery along all lot lines (except for street entrances) to prevent erosion and stormwater runoff onto neighboring properties and streets. Boundaries with existing residential properties shall be screened according to the buffering standards in sec. 105-28 An effective visual screen of native vegetation, including evergreens, shall be established and maintained between the parking or storage area and any abutting residential property. The PB may require additional trees planted in and around large parking lots. shall be provided with at least one tree (of two –inch caliper) for every 35 car spaces (four trees per acre), to be located at representative points throughout such lots

B. All parking or outdoor storage areas shall be separated from any public road by a landscaped buffer strip at least 15 feet wide. The PB may require that within the buffer strip a visual screen of plantings be established and maintained. Planted with shade trees (minimum two-inch caliper, planted at least every 50 feet along the road frontage) and dense, medium-height shrubs (three feet in height) to screen parked vehicles. All such plantings shall be maintained as an effective visual screen. Shrubs or trees which die shall be replaced within one growing season.

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


Language to be Removed, Crossed Out.

3. Proposed Subdivision Amendment to §89-19. Submissions

§89-19. Submissions.

A. The final plan shall consist of one or more maps or drawings drawn to a scale of not more than 100 feet to the inch. Plans for subdivisions containing more than 75 acres may be drawn at a scale of not more than 200 feet to the inch. Plans shall be no larger than 24 inches by 36 inches in size, and shall have a margin of two inches outside of the border line on the left side of the binding and a one-inch margin outside the border along the remaining sides. Space shall be reserved thereon for endorsement by the Board. Two reproducible, stable based transparent originals, one to be recorded at the Registry of Deeds, the other to be filed at the municipal offices, and three copies of the plan shall be submitted. The subdivider may instead submit one reproducible stable based transparent original of the final plan and one recording plan with three copies of the final plan. In addition, one copy of the final plan, reduced to a size of 8 ½ inches by 11 inches, and all accompanying information shall be mailed to each Board member no less than seven days prior to the meeting.

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


4. Amendment to the Residential Growth Ordinance after the required 3 year review.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 1/13/2015 Page 3 of 7

Roger A. stated the numbers are staying the same with respect to the amount of permits given in a calendar year. Roger said the change to the language in the Ordinance is as follows:

Growth Ordinance

(f) To allow growth of the residential population of the town at a rate which would not impose an undue burden upon the provision of community services (including education, fire protection, road maintenance, waste disposal, health services and welfare) and which would be compatible with the orderly and gradual expansion of said services.

(1) During the most current review of the tax base for 2013, the Education system accounts for 67.47% of the cost to taxpayers. The figure calculated per child per year for 2012-2013 in RSU #57 is $10,388. Although the number of children enrolled in the school system is not expected to rise in the next several years, the cost to Shapleigh taxpayers continues to have a slight increase each year. The most recent figures of cost increase to taxpayers projected for the year 2014-2015 is 3.72%, creating a cost per child of $10,774. With this figure it is apparent that any household with even one child would be an impact since there are not enough property taxes derived from the average house to generate enough money to pay for one child’s education. Therefore, the Growth Ordinance system must calculate growth in such a way as to assure the town can fund education at the current levels and those of the future.

(g) To guide Shapleigh’s expansion so that the annual increase in population and dwelling units shall not exceed the average rate of population and housing growth which occurred within the sub-region. During this time period, 2010 thru 2014, there is no census data but the number of single family dwellings permitted in the town has steadily increased from (3) in 2010, (5) in 2011, (7) in 2012 to (15) in 2013. With the current projected need for housing, the maximum annual number of Growth Permits should remain unchanged at 34 dwelling units.

(h) To guide Shapleigh’s expansion so that the increases in education costs are predictable and manageable.

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

Roger noted these would be the changes presented at Town Meeting in March 2015 for the citizens to vote on. Nothing further was discussed.

The public hearing closed at 6:16 p.m.

Copies of proposed Ordinance Changes can be obtained at the Town Hall during normal office hours.


The planning board meeting started at 6:30 p.m.

The minutes were accepted as read.


Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 1/13/2015 Page 4 of 7

Conditional Use Permit – Existing Business ‘Whole Nine Yards’ Adding Sales of Docks – Map 3, Lot 5 (299 Shapleigh Corner Road) – Marc & Cara Boisse’, Applicants.

Mr. Boisse’ was present for the review of the application.

Mr. Boisse’ presented to the board an application which stated ‘The current business “The Whole Nine Yards” will now be selling docks.’ Along with the application was a sketch plan which depicted the existing barn, a parking area, grass area, and that the opening onto the road would be 30 feet in width. There were also two notes that read as follows: ‘The 2 existing trees would be removed for visibility.’ ‘This drawing shows the driveway / parking area enlarged by 740 sq. ft.’

Roger A. asked Mr. Boisse’ to state what his intentions were. Mr. Boisse’ stated that the CEO had told him he needed to come before the board. He said his business installs docks in the spring and removes them in the fall and he noted they had been doing this for years. He believed selling aluminum docks would go hand in hand with this part of his business. He stated that he would be cutting down several trees so it would be easier to pull in and out. Also, the visibility in this location is great in both directions and there would be several docks on the patch of grass by the barn.

Roger A. asked how many docks would be on hand? Mr. Boisse’ stated excess docks would be behind the barn and there was a certain dollar value he was required to purchase up front. He stated whatever $20,000 would buy is how many he would have.

Roger A. stated that the 30 foot opening on the road had to be 26 feet in width. Mr. Boisse’ asked why it was limited to 26 feet? Roger stated that was what the ordinance stated. (§105-43 ‘Off-street parking and loading’ states in part ‘No off-street parking facility shall have more than two entrances and exits on the same street, and no entrance or exit shall exceed 26 feet in width.” Roger noted that this had been in the ordinance for many years. He said there was a change to the ordinance for the board to allow an additional six feet for safety reasons, as the sand/salt shed needed the extra room for the plow trucks; other than this, the width is limited to 26 feet.

Roger A. stated most docks would be stored behind the barn? Mr. Boisse’ stated some would be stored where it says ‘grass’ and the remaining would be behind the barn. Ann H. asked if both of the trees still had to be removed if the entrance was limited to 26 feet? Mr. Boisse’ stated he wanted to remove them regardless for visibility. Roger agreed this would be a good idea.

CEO McDonough asked if there was a designated area for the docks on the plan? Mr. Boisse’ stated they would be where the word ‘grass’ was. CEO McDonough asked if this was the only area where the docks would be located? Mr. Boisse’ stated that was where the docks would be that are to be shown and the remainder would either be behind the barn or in the barn. Steve F. thought it sounded like it would be a substantial amount of docks initially. Mr. Boisse’ stated, “No, probably 10 or 15 but there are so many miscellaneous parts that go with it that it eats up a lot of the cash flow.”

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

Roger A. stated there would be a Public Hearing at 6 p.m. on Tuesday, January 27. A notice to abutters will be mailed as well.

Note: Board members did not feel a site inspection was warranted as they all knew the location and layout of the property.

Nothing further was discussed.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 1/13/2015 Page 5 of 7

Conditional Use Permit – Addition to Parsonage for ‘Mother-in-law’ Apartment – Map 45, Lot 4 (600 Shapleigh Corner Road) – Trades Center, Inc., Applicant; Shapleigh First Baptist Church, Applicant

W. David Wade of Trades Center, Inc., was present along with Pastor Bosse of the First Baptist Church, and his wife.

The board received an application from Mr. Wade which stated ‘Proposed 1,000 SF w/deck addition to existing Parsonage for separate “Mother-in-law” apartment – Plans attached.’ Also presented was a site plan which depicted Map 45, Lot 4 in its entirety, the existing structures which include the Church and attached education center, the old parsonage with attached barn, the new parsonage and garage, along with the proposed addition w/deck and the existing parking areas. The plan also noted that the land area is 328,442 square feet in size and there is a minimum of 800 linear feet of street frontage.

In addition, Mr. Wade provided a picture of the proposed addition; a floor plan of the interior of the addition, including deck; the Subsurface Wastewater Disposal System Application, dated 11/26/2014, done by Kenneth Gardner, SE #73; a document entitled ‘Preliminary Scope of Work’ which gave a project description, shell construction, interior finishes, bathroom / kitchen description and utilities; a letter from Janie Silcocks, Church Clerk which stated Mr. Wade could represent the Church before the Planning Board; a list of abutters; and a letter written by Mr. Wade, dated December 18, 2014 which stated in part:

The initial use of this addition will be for a “mother-in-law” apartment. The future use would be for pastor support or education. The savings to use, light and heat large rooms of the church for small groups will be a plus. The floor plan includes a living and dining/kitchen area with a large bedroom with bathroom and closets and a den. Off of the kitchen will be a connecting enclosed porch accessing the existing house and a 10’ x 14’ deck as shown.

I have spoken with the CEO and by treating it as a duplex, the fire separation and separation of the electric and heating will adapt well to this use. The addition would have its own septic and the approved HHE-200 design sheet is attached.

Mr. Wade began by showing the board a copy of the plan he had provided them which was color coded for an easier depiction of the property. He then read from the letter he provided and noted the money savings in the future by using this structure for group meetings instead of having to heat an area in the church for small gatherings. He stated this structure will have its own heat, power and electric, as well as septic. It also will have the ability to be winterized should they want to shut it down in the future for the winter. He said, the Church had approved the addition by way of a Church meeting.

Mr. Wade stated the use of this structure will not have an adverse affect on the habitat of wildlife or surrounding area and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. He said with respect to traffic access and parking they would be working off of the existing parking and access. The site is in conformance with respect to flood hazard but noted they were near a stream but beyond the 75 foot setback requirement. The addition will add 1/3 of 1% more of additional runoff and would be handled by vegetation. Prior to excavation they will put up a silt fence. He noted again it would have its own septic system to handle solid waste and construction debris will be removed from the site. The parsonage itself was built within the past 10 years so he did not believe there would be any issue with hazardous material. He said because the addition is on the rear of the building and the property has existing trees and buffers, they did not plan on doing any additional landscaping, but ornamental flowers and plantings will be done by the homeowner.

Roger A. asked about the old parsonage, he believed the structure would have to be considered unsafe and not usable in any way for any reason. He stated the Church itself uses 2 acres, the old parsonage uses 2

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 1/13/2015 Page 6 of 7

acres, the existing parsonage uses two acres and a duplex takes up 4 acres, so because of the land requirements he did not believe the old parsonage would ever be able to be used in the future if this addition got approved. Roger believed if the old parsonage was never used in the future the board then could grant the additional dwelling.

Steve F. asked what the use of the old parsonage was at this time? Roger A. stated, “Nothing. In the permit to build the existing parsonage it stated that the old parsonage was never to be used unless a structural engineer were to state it was safe to use.” Roger thought at the present time it would have to be modified to say it can never be used, it is only a historical artifact. Mr. Wade did not disagree. Mr. Wade said if someone were to donate the cost to remove the building, many members of the church would like to see that. He thought there were repairs done to keep the roof from leaking and he believed they were using the barn but the house was not being used.

Pastor Bosse stated the old parsonage was actually put on Craig’s List because the Church was not planning on doing any engineering work to it or put it back into service. The barn is in use, no gatherings but is used actively for storage. Pastor Bosse asked what Roger was referring to? Roger stated he was referring to the parsonage itself as there was a kitchen, living quarters, etc. Mr. Wade said he has seen them storing things in the past. Pastor Bosse stated there was nothing in the building at this time. Roger wanted to be sure they understood that the old parsonage could not be used now or in the future. Roger did not see an issue with the barn being used, living spaces were the only issue.

CEO McDonough asked how much road frontage there was for the lot? Mr. Wade stated it was between 800 and 900 feet. CEO McDonough asked if Mr. Wade was sure it was 7.54 acres? Mr. Wade stated that was what the Town assessing card stated.

Roger A. noted the septic design only noted there was 5 acres. Mr. Wade wasn’t sure why? CEO McDonough thought it might be a threshold in the septic system regulations, it may not be the actual acreage.

Mr. Wade stated again that the figure for the acreage was taken from the Assessors sheet but if he has to revise the information he will. Steve F. looked up the information on the Town’s website and stated the property was listed as having 7.54 acres. Mr. Wade thanked Steve.

Roger A. stated that the person installing the silt fencing would have to have their DEP license to do so. Mr. Wade stated they would be using Labbe Excavating out of Arundel (Maine) and they are fully certified. He noted they do work on roads, State and Federal and a lot of construction in the Biddeford and Kennebunk area. Roger said he was noting this because there had been issues with Pump Box Brook, so he thought it was best to ensure they had the expertise to set up the silt fence, even though because of the distance to the brook it really wasn’t required. Mr. Wade stated he was very familiar with making sure this was done correctly with both residential and commercial construction. He stated he should have put the location of the silt fencing on the board’s copy of the plan but it was on his copy, noted in red.

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

Roger A. stated there would be a Public Hearing held after Mr. Boisse’s application for this application. Roger said again the Public Hearings would begin at 6:00 p.m. A notice to abutters will be mailed as well. There was no need for a site inspection as everyone was familiar with the property.

Nothing further was discussed.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 1/13/2015 Page 7 of 7

The Planning Board meeting ended at 7:00 p.m.

Respectively submitted,

Barbara Felong, Land Use Secretary