|July 29, 2015|
SHAPLEIGH PLANNING BOARD
Tuesday July 14, 2015
Members in attendance: Roger Allaire (Chairman), Maggie Moody (Vice Chair), Diane Srebnick, Alternates Ann Harris and Steve Foglio, as well as Barbara Felong (Secretary). Code Enforcement Officer Steven McDonough was also in attendance. Note: Madge Baker was unable to attend.
The following words are not verbatim unless accompanied by quotation marks “ ”
The planning board meeting started at 7:30 p.m.
The minutes were accepted as read.
Conditional Use Permit – Mineral Extraction – Part of Map 5, Lot 44 (Goose Pond Road) – Gloria & Frank Clark II, Applicants. Mr. & Mrs. Clark were present for the review of their application.
The Conditional Use Permit application for Map 5, Portion of Lot 44 stated, ‘After loam / stump removal, mineral extraction. Materials on-site to be excavated to elevation 530 and trucked off-site. This is to occur in 5 acre increments, so that no more than 5 acres are ‘active’ or up to 10 acres are opened / cleared.’ There would also be a 12’ x 20’ utility building placed on site.
Also provided were the following:
• A copy of the deed showing ownership, dated June 24, 2015; the description of the 20 acres to be affected by the mineral extraction operation;
• An authorization form stated James Logan of Albert Frick Associates could act as an agent in obtaining permits for the proposed activities with both the Shapleigh Planning Board and the Maine Dept. of Environmental Protection;
• A site location plan;
• A list of abutters;
• A copy of the Dept. of Environmental Protection Notice of Intent to Comply Performance Standards for Excavations for Borrow, Clay, Topsoil or Silt; a letter from John Perry of the Maine Dept. of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife, dated March 20, 2015, stating in part there are no locations of Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern Species within the project area;
• A copy of the Environmental Review of Fish and Wildlife Observations and Priority Habitats for the proposed area of extraction;
• The Proposed Gravel Extraction Site Closure Plan done by Albert Frick Associates, Inc., Environmental Consultants;
• A Memorandum from George Chobanian, of Civil Consultants, listing 14 test pits that were done on the property, along with a map showing the test pit locations, which calculated there being 330,000 cubic yards of material over a 13 acre +/- area which excavate only to the lower point of existing ground;
• Estimate from Levesque Excavation of Sanford, Maine, dated 7/13/2015, which stated the cost to reclaim five acres, including spreading of on-site topsoil and seeding would be $15,000.;
Page 1 of 6
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 7/14/2015 Page 2 of 6
• A letter and data provided to Thomas Harmon, P.E. of Civil Consultants, Inc., from R.W. Gillespie & Associates, Inc. which states in part that ‘Although some of the samples do not meet gradation requirements of selected Standard Specifications, it appears that with screening and/or mixing more of the Standard Specifications could be met.;
• Summary of the Laboratory Testing Program – Test Pits Proposed Sand and Gravel Pit, including the Particle Size Distribution Report;
• and the site plan entitled Proposed Mineral Extraction Site Plan, prepared for Frank Clark, Goose Pond Road (Map 5, Lot 44), Shapleigh, Maine, dated 1/27/15, drafted by Albert Frick Associates, Inc., Environmental Consultants, Gorham, Maine.
Roger A. began by asking Mr. & Mrs. Clark to state why they were before the board.
Mr. Clark began by stating he owned property on Goose Pond Road and it had been wooded for years and recently has been logged off, as people have probably seen. He said there were a lot of hills on the property and they would like to flatten some of them out and they would like to see grass, possibly some fruit trees or agriculture in the future. He said part of this entails taking out some of the hills to flatten it, as well as put some of that money toward what they would like to do in the future and to help pay the taxes. He stated, “We do not want to make a hole, it does say gravel extraction but we don’t want a gravel pit like there is in South Sanford or behind Agway. We would like to level the ground and there is quite a detailed map showing how far we are going.” He said, “It will be sloped, there would be erosion control, it will be reseeded after every five acres before we start another five acres.” He asked if the board had any questions?
Roger A. asked where the material would be going? Mr. Clark stated he did not have a buyer at this time but they have been talking to some buyers. Roger asked if it would be staying in Shapleigh? Mr. Clark didn’t know, he said it would depend if there was a need in Shapleigh, he was open to that, it would be a 20 acre site. Roger wanted Mr. Clark aware that if anyone accepted the gravel in Shapleigh, depending on the number of yards, they may need to come before the Planning Board to get a Conditional Use Permit to accept it. Mr. Clark said, “To accept it, ok.” Mr. Clark asked if Acton needed a permit. Roger said he did not know, that was not this board’s issue.
Mr. Clark said that his property abutted several roads. He noted that twice a year Shapleigh grades their roads, Acton does not, so he would be willing to offer gravel to people in Acton if they need it to repair their roads privately.
Mr. Clark asked if someone were to need a permit to accept gravel in Shapleigh, would the process be the same, a minimum of two meetings before the board? Roger A. stated yes, anytime there is a Conditional Use it takes a minimum of two meetings in order for the board to notify abutters. He said at times it takes more than two meetings.
Roger A. stated he noticed the first five acre site was in the front, he asked if there would be a road going in for the second five acres? Mr. Clark stated there would be a dirt access road only, coming along the edge of the excavation site. Mr. Clark said he originally was going to start in the back and work toward the front but you would need a road to do that. Roger asked if the gravel road would be reclaimed at a later date? Mr. Clark stated he would like to have an access road on site. He said if the town needed the road reclaimed he would do that.
Roger A. asked if the depth would be no lower than 530 feet on any sections? Mr. Clark stated, “Right.” He said there were one or two existing spots that are lower now but that is being used as the drainage area. He said they would not be ‘digging any lower than the depth you mentioned’.
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 7/14/2015 Page 3 of 6
Roger A. asked if the stumps would be left until they decomposed? Mr. Clark stated he planned on hiring Simpsons drum grinder and using it to help reclaim the property or possibly selling some of the stump grindings. He thought Simpson’s may take the material for payment but the stumps would not stay on site. Mr. Clark stated that he realized he could bury the stumps on site but he didn’t like that idea because they eventually rot. He said they would be removed in some manner.
Roger A. asked if there were any other questions? Diane S. asked how heavy the dump trucks weighed when loaded with gravel? Ann H. stated it depended on the size of the truck. Diane noted that the road is posted with a 27 ton weight limit. Ann asked if it is year round? Diane said she did not know. Nick Clark, Frank Clark’s son, stated they were under that loaded. Diane said, ‘OK.’
Ann H. asked if they were doing five acres, then reseeding it, then going to the next five acres? Mr. Clark stated, “That is correct.” CEO McDonough asked Mr. Clark if they spoke with the DEP? Mr. Clark stated they had, the permit is in process and to date the DEP has not stated the project is causing them concern.
Ann H. asked if the board had to set a time limit for reseeding? Roger A. stated the permit was valid for 3 years only. He said the reseeding depended on how quickly the area is excavated. Barbara F. noted they have to check in with the town every three years. Ann asked if there was a time frame for putting the loam back and reseeding? Roger said, “No, as long as it is in process.”
Roger A. asked Mr. Clark if he realized the permit would only be good for 3 years, then it would need to be renewed if the project was not complete? Mr. Clark said yes, but he hoped that process would not be quite as lengthy. Roger said it was not, the engineering has been done.
Roger A. said with respect to the clearing of the trees and brush, would it be cleared all at once or 5 acres at a time? Mr. Clark stated it depended on who they used. He thought they would want to clear half of it for an area for gravel piles and screening. He said once they get their permits they would shop the gravel out. He stated they were not here to make an ugly area, he wanted it to look nice. He said again he wanted rolling fields or fruit trees or both.
Roger A. asked if they were going to put up cash for the reclamation or would it be a bond? Mr. Clark was not sure at this time, he had to look into his options. Mr. Clark asked if he could get a line of credit? He also thought the buyer might be able to put up a bond. Roger stated that the board needed something that would be valid for three years, so if the area was not completed, the town could exercise the right to reclaim it. Mr. Clark asked, what if the site was not totally done in three years? Roger said you would just have to renew the permit. Mr. Clark stated he did not want the site open for 10 years, he was hoping for three years but he was not sure. CEO McDonough asked if he looked into getting a bond? Mr. Clark stated he had not. CEO McDonough and Ann H. stated they did not think it would be difficult to get a surety bond. Ann stated he could contact whomever he had for insurance, or have the person doing the extraction get a surety bond to cover him. She stated the bonds were not expensive and he could get a bond for every five acres. She said several companies do surety bonds. Roger noted it had to last for the life of the permit.
CEO McDonough asked if Mr. Clark had any idea what it would cost to reclaim five acres? Mr. Clark stated roughly $15,000 (he had provided an estimate from Levesque Excavation, dated 7/13/2015 stating the cost to reclaim 5 acres would be $15,000 including spreading on site topsoil & seeding).
Roger A. asked if there were any further questions or comments? There were none.
Roger A. stated a public hearing will be held on Tuesday, July 28th at 7:00 p.m. Prior to that will be a site inspection at 6:00 p.m. and a notice to abutters shall be mailed.
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 7/14/2015 Page 4 of 6
Barbara F. asked if the site was flagged? Mr. Clark stated that the entire area was flagged by someone from Al Frick and Associates. He stated he didn’t see the guy do it but he was told by the gentlemen that he used 4 rolls of tape flagging the area. Mr. Clark stated the road onto Goose Pond Road was marked as well.
Nothing further was discussed.
Best Possible Location – Replace Existing Shed – Map 34, Lot 22 (174 Cedar Drive) – Philip Lemay, Applicant; Deborah Taranto, Property Owner Mr. Lemay and Ms. Taranto were present for review of the application.
The Best Possible Location application for Map 34, Lot 22 stated, ‘Demo old shed and replace with new. Existing not repairable’. Presented along with the application were the following:
• A sketch depicting the existing structures on site; a house, garage and shed. Distance from the shed to the water is shown as 24 feet; distance from the shed to the house is 69 feet ±; distance from the shed to the garage is 38 feet ±, distance to a property marker, 35 feet. Two large trees near the existing shed were also depicted along with a notation for ‘lawn’, ‘driveway’, ‘slope & trees’. The existing structure is 214 square feet in size, not including rake or soffit overhangs.
• A second sketch was presented which depicted the house, garage and ‘proposed’ shed. In this sketch it showed the distance to the water to be 30 feet ±; distance to the house 63 feet ±, to the garage 32 feet ±, to the property marker 41 feet. Two large trees near the proposed shed were also depicted along with a notation for ‘lawn’, ‘driveway’, & ‘slope’. The proposed footprint of the structure will be 216 square feet, this measurement does not include rake or soffit overhangs.
Roger A. asked the applicants to briefly explain why they were before the board. Mr. Lemay stated that currently there is an oddly shaped structure that at one time was used for boat storage. He said it was poorly constructed and is now in complete disrepair, and there was nothing he could do to repair it. He said they wanted to have it torn down, they would put up silt fence for erosion control and would do whatever was necessary around the structure. He would be using Caleb Chessie and Caleb knew what was required with respect to Shoreland zoning. He said they would tear down the existing structure and also replace the concrete slab that exists, as it is all heaved up and cracked and the new structure would be square instead of the odd shape of the existing. He explained the new structure would be wider than the existing by two feet but shorter in length by 2 feet. The new structure would be moved away from the lake six feet farther from the existing location.
CEO McDonough asked if the square footage of the new structure was the same as the existing. Mr. Lemay stated that the new structure would be 2 square feet larger. Mr. Lemay stated that if he had to reduce the size by the two feet he could do so.
Roger A. asked if the materials from the existing structure would be removed from site? Mr. Lemay stated, “Yes”. Roger asked where they would go, noting they could not be taken to the transfer station. Mr. Lemay said he did not know where Caleb would be taking the material. Roger said he would need to know where the material would be taken.
Roger A. said if the plan is approved, the area where the building is going to sit on the face of the earth, has to be surveyed. Roger said that because the plan states the structure is 30 feet from the lake and 41 feet from the property marker, if this is approved, the structure will have to be in that ‘exact’ location. He said if
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 7/14/2015 Page 5 of 6
during construction there is a discrepancy, they would have to come back before the board for approval of the new location. Steve F. asked the applicants if they had an existing survey of the property? Ms. Taranto stated she has survey markers on the property. Steve stated that it would be cheaper to use the surveyor that already did the property, for this application, because it would be cheaper.
Roger A. stated the board needed a landscaping plan for all the disturbed soils, what will be put in after the project is completed. Steve F. asked what was there at this time? Mr. Lemay stated, ‘Just gravel’. Ms. Taranto said there was some grass. Mr. Lemay stated they might have to bring a few yards of gravel for the area where the concrete will be removed. He said looking at the existing there is gravel on the right of the property and some grass on the left of the property, and some grass behind the existing shed. He said they planned on adding more grass seed in the areas that are disturbed.
Roger A. asked if any trees would need to be removed? Mr. Lemay stated, “No, actually the two trees that are there, by moving it forward, it avoided having to do anything.” He said he didn’t want to cut trees next to the water.
Roger A. asked if there were any additional questions or comments?
Ann H. asked if there would be gutters on the building? Mr. Lemay said, “No.” He said the plan shows the dimension of the walls, it doesn’t include the gable ends and the soffit side overhangs. It is walls only.
Maggie M. asked since the plan doesn’t include the overhangs, doesn’t it count toward the square footage? Diane S. stated that was not up to the board, that is for CEO McDonough. The board is only supposed to look at the structure. Steve F. noted the surveyor will plot to the edge of the overhang.
Roger A. stated a site inspection will take place on July 28th at approximately 6:30 p.m. A notice to abutters shall be mailed as well.
Mr. Lemay stated he would speak with Caleb Chessie with respect to where the debris will go. Ann H. stated that a re-vegetation plan should be done. CEO McDonough added that how the exposed soil will be stabilized should also be on the plan.
Nothing further was discussed.
Roland L. asked Roger A. that he be recused from the Clark Conditional Use Permit application. Roger accepted.
Growth Permits: There are growth permits available.
The Planning Board meeting ended at 8:10 p.m.
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 7/14/2015 Page 6 of 6
The next meeting will be held Tuesday, July 28th, 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.
Land Use Secretary
July 31, 2015 11:27 PM