SHAPLEIGH PLANNING BOARD
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Members in attendance: Chairman Roger Allaire, Vice Chairman Maggie Moody, Roland Legere, Alternate Stephen Foglio, as well as Barbara Felong, Land Use Secretary. Code Enforcement Officer Steven McDonough was also in attendance. Madge Baker and Diane Srebnick were unable to attend.
Planning board meeting began at 7:30 p.m.
The minutes from Tuesday, October 22, 2013, were accepted as read.
Note: The minutes are not verbatim unless in quotes.
Best Possible Location – Build a 20’ x 36’ Garage in the Shoreland District – Map 44, Lot 59 (198 Silver Lake Road) – Roland Lapointe, Applicant
Mr. Lapointe was present for the review of his application. Board members did a site inspection on an individual basis due to light constraints before this evenings meeting.
Mr. Lapointe’s application before the board is to request he be able to remove the existing shed and replace it with a 20’ x 36’ garage. The existing shed and proposed garage cannot meet the setback to the road but will meet all other setbacks for the Shoreland District. The garage will be place greater than 100 feet from the high water mark of Silver Lake.
Roger A. began by stating that Roland L. noticed excavation being done on an adjacent property and asked if Mr. Lapointe knew anything about it? Mr. Lapointe stated that he believed there was a leachfield being put in. CEO McDonough confirmed that and stated he had been to the site for an inspection today. Roland said he was just curious.
Roger A. stated that Mr. Lapointe contacted him to ask if he could change his plan, moving the proposed structure back one foot from the road, consequently, he would be able to keep the structure parallel to the road and not increase its non-conformity. It has been noted at the previous meeting by Roger that the existing shed was not parallel to the road and therefore he was concerned with the new structure being more non-conforming than the existing to the road by one foot if it were not placed the same way as the existing structure on the lot. Roger stated he told Mr. Lapointe he had no issue with him moving it back one foot from the road, so he could make it parallel to the road. Mr. Lapointe stated he measured the existing shed and it is 35 feet back from the road at this time, so he could place the new garage in the same location as he presented at the first meeting.
Roger A. stated the board received a letter today, dated November 10, 2013, from abutters and he read it in its entirety. It read as follows:
Dear Chairman Allaire and Planning Board Members,
We support our neighbors Roland and Donna Lapointe regarding the proposed 20 x 36 ft. garage to be built on (map 44) lot 59, adjacent to our property at 192 Silver Lake Road in Shapleigh. They have spoken with us about the best placement (replacing the current shed) and we are fine with this change!
Sincerely, Gail Laker-Phelps and Richard Phelps
Page 1 of 5
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 11/12/13 Page 2 of 5
Roger A. asked if there were any questions? Roland L. asked about the change in the location from what was discussed at the previous meeting moving the new structure back one foot. Roger said the plan showed the measurement from the shed to the road as 35 feet and he questioned whether or not it was from the closest point on the shed. Roger said it is actually from the closest point to the road so the new structure can be parallel to the road and 35 feet from the road. Roger said he was confused at the last meeting as to whether or not the measurement on the plan was from the closest or furthest point from the road.
Roger A. read §105-4.D ‘Nonconforming structures’ (1) ‘Expansions’ in its entirety. Roger noted the structure is greater than 100 feet from the water, therefore, it can be expanded more than 30%. He then read §105-4.D(3) ‘Foundations’. Roger again stated the structure / foundation would be enlarged greater than 30% because it was greater than 100 feet from the water so it was in conformity with D(1). Next Roger reviewed §105-4.D(7) ‘Relocation’ and noted there would not be a septic system installed as this is a garage only. He added that there would not be much re-vegetation needed, only along the slope on the side of the building. He also said that a ditched area would be installed to divert water around the building. Mr. Lapointe stated that he would be putting down erosion control mulch along both sides of the building. Roger noted that the area around the shed did not need not to be revegetated as it will be covered over with the new building.
Roger A. stated the plan showed that the back wall of the building will also act as a retaining wall and an area behind the new structure will have fill removed to create less of a slope so stormwater can filter around the structure.
Roger A. stated that due to the slope of the land the board felt the new structure was placed in the best possible location, he did not believe it could be moved back any further. He thought the swale behind the building and mulch on the sides would prevent soil erosion. Roger noted the trees had been removed already where the new structure will be placed.
Roger A. read §105-4.D(7)(c) which reads: All approved plans shall require confirmation in writing by a licensed surveyor that the placement of the structure is correct per the specifications approved by the Planning Board. Roger stated that a surveyor will have to ensure the building is in fact 35 feet from the road.
Roger A. asked if there were any additional questions? There were none.
Maggie M. made the motion to approve the Best Possible Location to replace the existing shed with a 20’ x 36’ garage on Map 44, Lot 59, per the plans presented with the following conditions:
1) Erosion control mulch to be placed along the sides of the building after the foundation is backfilled.
2) A licensed surveyor must place the structure per the approved plan and certify the foundation location.
Roland L. 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. By a vote of 3 – 0, the motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Lapointe asked Roger A. what his definition of a retaining wall was, since Roger stated the back of the new structure would be a retaining wall. He asked, “If I put in an 8 foot foundation on the back by 8 inches did that constitute a retaining wall?” Roger said, “It is the back of the wall and Steve will have to ensure he has the plans for that.” CEO McDonough asked if they were talking about the foundation itself? Mr.
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 11/12/13 Page 3 of 5
Lapointe and Roger both said, yes. Mr. Lapointe wanted to be sure Roger wasn’t asking for an additional wall. Roger said he was talking about the foundation.
Nothing further was discussed.
Best Possible Location – Remove Cottage and Replace with Modular Home/ 30% Expansion – Map 43, Lot 1 (135 North Shore Road) – Dina Picanco Wardle, Applicant
Mrs. Picanco Wardle was present for the review of the application along with Lee Marvin of Arundel Homes.
Roger A. began by stating the applicant wanted to replace the existing cottage with a modular home and there would be a 30% expansion. The applicant provided to board members along with a copy of the application a survey plan which depicted the location of the existing cottage, deck, and shed that would be removed; and the proposed dimensions and location of the modular home and deck. The planned showed the modular home to be 15 feet back farther from the high water mark of Silver Lake but approximately 20 feet closer to the road than the existing cottage. Also provided was a copy of the house plans for the modular home; a copy of the Subsurface Wastewater Disposal System Application, dated 9/3/2013, done by Mark Truman, SE #121; a copy of the Permit by Rule dated 10/2/2013; the square foot and volume calculations for the existing and new structure; and a letter dated October 31, 2013 from Mrs. Wardle stating Lee Melvin and Tracy Morrisette of Arundel Homes could represent her interest to both the Planning Board and Code Enforcement Officer.
Roger A. stated he had a concern making the proposed new home more non-conforming, moving it closer to the road than the existing. Mr. Melvin stating it was 4 feet closer than the previous approval given by the Planning Board 10 years ago. Roger stated, “It doesn’t matter.” Mr. Melvin stated the approved plan showed a 4 foot porch and a 40 foot home. He stated this home could be reduced by 2 feet from the road by reducing the deck. Roger said the rule of not being able to make a structure more non-conforming changed in 2009. Roger said that he believed the plan would have to be redesigned so the new structure would not be more non-conforming.
Stephen F. asked, “Did you say you pulled it back from the water 15 feet?” Mrs. Wardle stated that she was expanding 30%. Roger A. stated, “You can go up. You can’t push it closer to the road.” CEO McDonough asked, “Did you say you are moving the structure 15 back farther from the water than it is now?” Mrs. Wardle said, yes, but she realized she was moving it closer to the road. Roger said, “The building can’t be any more non-conforming.” Mr. Melvin stated this new plan shows the existing structure farther from the true side lot line than the original approval, based on the recent survey. Roger believed the approval for the Best Possible Location in 2003 is now null and void. CEO McDonough stated that at a previous meeting this was mentioned about the expiration of a Best Possible Location, then member Diane Srebnick believed that a Best Possible Location approved prior to the expiration date change in the Ordinance, at Town Meeting in March of this year, did not expire. Only applications approved after the March Town Meeting changes would have to adhere to the 2 year expiration rule. CEO McDonough believed older applications were grandfathered but he didn’t think this was the issue. He stated, “I think if they moved it 15 feet from the water and the Planning Board has the ability to grant the best practical location, it basically throws all the setbacks out the window.” CEO McDonough stated that because they moved it back from the high water mark it is more conforming than it is now. Roland L. said, “Even though it’s closer to the road.” CEO McDonough said “Yes, that is the purpose, to move it farther from the water if possible.”
Stephen F. asked Mrs. Wardle why she moved it back from the water, did it make more sense on the layout? Mrs. Wardle said it did seem to make more sense. Roger A. asked about why they went to a 28 foot width and not 24 feet? Mr. Melvin stated they were initially at 25 feet. Roger said this new width brings them
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 11/12/13 Page 4 of 5
closer to the side lot line than the original. Mr. Melvin said, “Theoretically it is closer to the side lot line but the side lot line was established from the house back then (2003).” Mrs. Wardle stated they assumed where the side lot line was in 2003 but have found out since the survey that the side lot line is actually farther away from the camp and it goes thru the stairs of the neighboring property. Mr. Melvin, using the survey, showed where the applicant believed the original side lot line was but after the survey was done they established the actual side lot line. He noted the house was askew on the original application and approval, the survey shows they own an additional five feet on one side of the existing structure. Mr. Melvin stated the surveyor placed the proposed home in the center of the lot, creating a side lot distance of approximately 10.4 feet on each side. Stephen F. noted that currently one side is at 8 feet and the new structure will be 10.4. Roger said the other side is 16 feet going down to 10.4. Roger said this was why he wanted to know why they were going with 28 feet in width instead of 24 feet because it pushed it closer to the side lot lines. Mr. Melvin said it was due to the volume. He said, “We were told we couldn’t go up any higher so we kept a lower roof pitch to keep the volume down and widened it to make it more conventional at 28.” He said originally they were going to do 24 feet and 25 feet didn’t make any sense because of dimensional lumber there would be alot of waste.
Roger A. asked about lot coverage, did they exceed the 10% of the lot? Mr. Melvin stated he believed the surveyor did the calculations. Roger said the ordinance only allows 10% use of the lot. CEO McDonough stated he remembered discussing this with Mr. Melvin. Barbara F. told Mr. Melvin that if the existing lot coverage was 12% they could remain at the 12% as it is grandfathered but they could not exceed the 12% lot coverage. She said the board needs to have the existing figure along with the proposed. Mr. Melvin stated that if they can use all the structures on site including the outhouse that is going to be removed to calculate the lot coverage then the existing figure is 1,232 square feet. He stated the proposed is also 1,232 square feet.
Roger A. stated the board will have to notify the abutters and do a site inspection. The next meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 26th.
Mr. Melvin asked if he should be present for the site inspection? Roger A. stated no because due to light constraints members would go on an individual basis. Maggie M. asked if the area where the new house is going was marked off? Mr. Melvin stated it hadn’t been marked yet because he wasn’t sure what the board was going to allow.
Mr. Melvin stated there would be a dead tree removed, he believed it was a poplar.
Roland L. asked that the location closest to the road be marked. Mr. Melvin stated he would mark it within a couple of days. Roland stated he would be asked at the next meeting where the existing cottage would be removed to as it cannot stay in the Shoreland District. Mr. Melvin stated it would be going to Jeff Simpson’s in Sanford. Roland told him he would be asked about his time table for the project and if there was going to be any revegetation there would need to be a plan and a time table for that.
Roger A. asked if the stairs were going to be removed from the front of the house? Mrs. Wardle stated there would be no stairs toward the water; she said the entrance would be on the side of the house.
Mr. Melvin believed there would be a total of five trees removed on the entire lot and several were outside of the 100 foot mark from the water. Roger A. asked if the contractor they used had a DEP license to be working in the Shoreland District? Mr. Melvin stated yes, Spang & Son Excavators. He added that they do alot of work around the ocean.
Mr. Melvin stated they may cut the trees this fall. He said he would mark the trees that will be removed for the board members to view.
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 11/12/13 Page 5 of 5
Nothing further was discussed.
Madge B. will be unable to attend the next scheduled meeting.
Growth Permits – There are Growth Permits available.
All supporting documentation, applications, etc. can be reviewed at the Town Hall during regular operating hours.
Planning Board meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Barbara Felong, Land Use Secretary