April 28, 2017  5:49 PM 
March 31, 2017
Other Notices
March 31, 2017
March 31, 2017

SHAPLEIGH PLANNING BOARD

MINUTES

Tuesday, January 24, 2017

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

**************************

Public Hearing began at 6:00 p.m.

Amendment to a CUP – Add Ground Mounted Solar Panels to Property – Map 7, Lot 5 (1026 Shapleigh Corner Road) – Town of Shapleigh, Property Owner; Revision Energy, Applicant

Selectmen Perro and Selectmen Mageary were present for the review of the application.

Roger A. opened the public hearing and asked Mr. Mageary if he would like to speak, as Chairman Mike Perro had not arrived yet. Mr. Mageary began by stating the Selectmen were proposing a solar array system, the size to be 71.3 kW and it will be placed adjacent to the sand/salt building. He said this should generate 99% of the Towns usage of electricity for all the buildings, the only exception would be the street lights. He asked if there were any questions?

Ann H. asked since it didn’t supply the streetlights, if the power company would buy back the electricity and put it toward the streetlights? Mr. Mageary said the reason they are creating less than 100% of the usage is because if you generate more than you use, you will lose the electricity. He told Ann that the electricity goes back into the grid and then we draw from it. There is an account and we draw from what gets banked. Roger A. told Ann that if the Town generates too much, then it’s regulated by the PUC (Public Utilities Commission), so the Town becomes a separate entity creating power. Ann said that it must be different from farms because they can bank their electricity from solar and wind, and whatever is extra they bank it on their account and in the winter they use it. Mr. Mageary said that the Town can bank it for 12 months.

Selectmen Perro said that there was no drive to put in extra because the Town was not selling it back to the power company, they are only banking electricity for the town to use only. Ann didn’t know why they couldn’t add the lights, to be 100% utility free? Selectmen Perro said the issue is the metering system, you are only allowed to have so many meters. He stated that all the street lights have different accounts, so it would put you over the number of accounts / meters you can use. The town can only use up to 9 meters the way this is set up for the system. Ann asked if all nine meters are being used? Selectmen Perro said that 8 are being used and one is a transit line to use as a back and forth line between the grid and the Town.

Roland L. asked if this included the elementary school? Selectmen Perro said, no that is part of the RSU 57 school district, so that isn’t town metered. He said that ‘town use’ would be the town hall, library, recreation fields, safety and rescue. He said every meter that the Town pays for with the exception of street lighting is covered under this. Ann H. was curious how much the electric bills were? Selectmen Perro said the biggest account was the town hall because it had electric heat, therefore, the winter time would be the biggest use. He said with the rec fields their use is the irrigation system. They are talking about putting in lights for the parking lot but right now it is only irrigation and its use is when other things aren’t being used. He added that the public safety building has a higher use now because it is being staffed more. Selectmen Perro did not have the actual figures with him.

Ann H. was curious with respect to when the Town would get a return. Selectmen Perro stated that the buyout of the system would be after six years to take advantage of the incentives. With buying it back, at 16 years is when it will be completely paid back. At that point for the remaining life of the system, from then

Page 1 of 13

Shapleigh Planning Board Meeting – 1/24/17 Page 2 of 13

on all you pay for is a delivery charge. He said a minimum time frame for the life of this system is 40 years, so from 16 years to 40 years, that is all profit basically at that time. He also stated that over a period of 40 years they expect the Town will have a gain of over $300,000.

Roland L. said one of the conditions in the ordinance talks about noise, odor, glare, etc. He asked if those living south of the proposed panels would be seeing a glare from bright light from the sun reflecting? Selectmen Perro said the only person who would see it would be someone in an airplane, and these are low glare so they don’t produce glare, otherwise they would be a hazard to air traffic.

Ann H. asked how tall they would be? Selectmen Perro stated that the bottom of the panels would be roughly five feet off the ground and they would be approximately 15 feet at the highest. Mr. Mageary stated that each panel was 3’ x 5’ and they will be stacked 2 panels high. Ann asked if there was a humming noise if you got near them? Mr. Mageary said that you would not hear a thing. Madge B. agreed that you do not usually hear them.

Ann H. asked if something happened to the panels, did the company that first owned them before the buy back, would they replace the panel? Selectmen Perro said, yes, that is part of the contract. Any vandalism, deterioration, defects, etc. they would take care of it while they owned it. He said after that, when the Town purchased it outright, there would be a maintenance agreement. He noted that the inverters had a life expectancy of 20 years within this price structure, the replacement of the inverters is factored in, so those figures are already planned on within this price structure.

Mr. Mageary wanted the board and public to know that if a panel went down for any reason, it didn’t affect the rest of the panels and they still continue to produce electricity. Selectmen Perro stated that the Town would know that something was not working properly, there will be a monitor screen that tells the Town what is being generated every hour of every day. So if the sun is out and they should be producing at 94% and they are only producing at 85% then the system will have to be checked.

Ann H. asked if this company has put up other units in Maine? Selectmen Perro said yes, they have done several companies, colleges and municipalities. They have done some that are larger than what Shapleigh is proposing and some are smaller. He said they did check with the companies that had them and they gave raving reviews all the way across the board, from a great working relationship and about the product.

Roland L. asked if at the Town Meeting in March, if the taxpayers are going to be asked to vote on just the concept of the solar panels or specifically a contract with Revision Energy. Selectmen Perro said they would be voting on giving the Selectmen the ability to negotiate a contract with a solar company for this process. Madge B. thought they would also vote on money. Selectmen Perro said no, there is no money yet. Madge asked about putting the $20,000 away that was discussed at the previous meeting? Selectmen Perro said it would go into a reserve, so they can buy the system in six years. Madge said, right. Selectmen Perro noted that historically voters have been supportive of setting up reserve accounts for large expenses, so they don’t get hit with a large amount all at once.

Ann H. thought it might be helpful to put out a spreadsheet discussing the overall savings for the project. Madge B. and Selectmen Perro stated that there was one that was handed out during the voting in November and there is also a copy in the Town Hall. Selectmen Perro stated that they already did one information session with the company and anyone could speak or ask questions. It showed how the system worked and the benefits. One was done on November 17, 2016 at the Town Hall and there will be another one held on February 18th a few weeks before Town Meeting.

Madge B. noted the handout that was passed out on voting day was very good.

Shapleigh Planning Board Meeting – 1/24/17 Page 3 of 13

Roland L. asked if another municipal building was added, did the system have the potential to be expanded if

needed. Selectmen Perro said, absolutely, the way it is set up, there are two and one/half rows. If you grow in the future you can finish the third row or add additional rows. He didn’t see this growing much in the near future but it is easily added to.

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

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

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Final Review of the Changes Proposed by the Planning Board to the Comprehensive Plan

Roger A. reviewed the changes made during the last public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan. There were no changes made this evening. The Comprehensive Plan will be presented to the voters as discussed at the public hear on December 13, 2016.

Copies of the Comprehensive Plan can be obtained at the Town Hall.

The public hearing ended at 6:25 p.m.

******************************

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

The minutes from Tuesday, January 10, 2017 were amended as follows: Page 2 of 10, last paragraph - Diane S. wanted ‘State revenue’ added to her reply for clarity. So the sentence will read ‘She said [State revenue] from taxing marijuana’.

******************************

Amendment to a CUP – Add Ground Mounted Solar Panels to Property – Map 7, Lot 5 (1026 Shapleigh Corner Road) – Town of Shapleigh, Property Owner; Revision Energy, Applicant

Selectmen Perro and Selectmen Mageary were present for the review of the final application.

Along with the application, the Selectmen provided board members with a document entitled, ‘Solar PPA Term Sheet for the Town of Shapleigh by Revision Energy’. This informational document had the following information contained within it:

Project Description

• System Size: 71.3 kW

• Annual Generation: 94,302 kWh

• Municipal Electricity Load Offset: 99%

• Annual Carbon Offset: 87,701 lbs.

• Total Project Cost (financed by ReVision Energy): $215,095

Power Purchase Agreement (PPA)

• No upfront cost to the Town of Shapleigh

• Town purchases electricity generated by solar project for 6 to 20 years

• Annual buyout option after year 6 at $107,548 (50% of upfront cost)

• Projected 40-year energy savings of more than $300,000

Shapleigh Planning Board Meeting – 1/24/17 Page 4 of 13

ReVision’s PPA Project Experience

• 15 projects for Schools in Maine and New Hampshire

• 13 projects for Non Profits in Maine and New Hampshire

• 13 Municipal projects including: Towns of Eliot, Windham, South Portland and Belfast

Public Information Forums

The Selectboard will be holding information forums for the proposed solar project on,

• Thursday, November 17th at 7 PM

• Saturday, February 18th at 10 AM

The Planning Board also received a proposed location picture which depicted the solar panels to take up an area to be approximately 100’ X 150’; the panels will be located 75 feet from the edge of Route 11 and approximately 200 feet from Hodgdon Road. The parcel itself, Map 7, Lot 5, contains a total of 14.47 Acres and currently houses the sand/salt facility.

Roger A. asked if there were any additional questions, since the public hearing and there were none.

Roger A. began review of the Basic Performance Standards for the solar project.

105-21 – Traffic. Roger A. stated access to the site was safe, site distances were approved for this location on September 9, 2014 for the sand/salt storage facility.

105-22 – Noise. There will be no noise generated from the activity, other than the construction which will be minimal.

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 glare from the panels because of their composition. Also, this location is surrounded by a wooded area.

105-26 – Stormwater runoff. There are no changes being made to the property that would cause a stormwater problem. Stormwater runoff mitigation was addressed and approved for the sand/salt facility on September 9, 2014.

105-27 – Erosion control. There are no changes being made to the existing property that would cause an erosion problem. Erosion control was addressed and approved for the sand/salt facility on September 9, 2014.

105-28 – Setbacks and screening. Existing vegetation will remain and there is agreement it is good to be able to see the panels to prevent vandalism.

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 generated by this activity to affect water quality.

105-31 – Preservation of landscape; landscaping of parking and storage areas. None being generated or required. Access for maintenance is required only, any parking will be at the existing sand/salt facility.

105-32 - Relation of proposed building to the environment. This will not have any detrimental effects as this is the location of the sand/salt facility.

105-33 – Refuse disposal. None generated.

105-34 – Access Control to Route 11. This was approved on September 9, 2014 for the sand/salt facility. The same access point will be used for the solar panels.

Roger noted there was no signage required, no off-street parking or sanitary provisions for this application.

Shapleigh Planning Board Meeting – 1/24/17 Page 5 of 13

§105-54 – Solar Considerations. Section A(1) When solar energy systems are proposed, which are not attached to a house, they shall be set back 10 feet from the side and rear lot lines and 25 feet from the right-of-way line (or 50 feet from the center line) of a road, whichever distance is greater. Roger stated that the location of the panels meet the requirements. Note: The other provisions of this section do not apply to this application.

Roger A. then reviewed §105-73.G ‘Standards applicable to conditional uses’ 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.

1) The use will not have an adverse impact on spawning grounds, fish, aquatic life, birds or other wildlife habitat. Roger A. stated, it will not.

2) The use will conserve shore cover and visual, as well as actual, access to water bodies. Roger A. stated this is not applicable.

3) The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Roger A. stated the Comprehensive Plan didn’t directly address solar energy. Madge B. stated that it was a use that did not have an adverse impact on the environment and will be a benefit to the town.

4) Traffic access to the site is safe. Roger A. stated, it is. It was approved for this location on September 9, 2014 for the sand/salt facility.

5) The site design is in conformance with all municipal flood hazard protection regulations. Roger A. stated it is.

6) Adequate provision for the disposal of all wastewater and solid waste has been made. N/A, none generated by this activity.

7) Adequate provision for the transportation, storage and disposal of any hazardous materials has been made. N/A, none generated by this activity.

8) A stormwater drainage system capable of handling fifty-year storm without adverse impact on adjacent properties has been designed. Roger A. stated this project will not be affecting the existing ground cover once the pilings are put into place. There is a stormwater design for this location for the sand/salt facility.

9) Adequate provisions to control soil erosion and sedimentation have been made. Roger A. stated there are for the sand/salt facility and no changes are being made to create soil erosion.

10) There is adequate water supply to meet the demands of the proposed use and for fire protection purposes. Roger A. stated that it isn’t required for this project.

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. Roger A. stated everything is in existence, no changes are being made. There are no detrimental features.

12) All performance standards in this chapter applicable to the proposed use will be met. Roger A. stated they shall.

Roger A. stated with respect to a performance guarantee that will be done through the contract with the company chosen to install the panels. The Selectmen will deal with this issue.

With no additional questions or comments, Madge B. moved for approval of the ground mounted solar panel project for the Town of Shapleigh to be placed on the town owned property at the sand/salt storage facility, Map 7 Lot 5. Maggie M. 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. By a vote of 5 – 0, the vote to approve was unanimous.

Shapleigh Planning Board Meeting – 1/24/17 Page 6 of 13

Nothing further was discussed.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Findings of Facts

1. The owners of Shapleigh Tax Map 7, Lot 5 (1026 Shapleigh Corner Road), are the inhabitants of Town of Shapleigh, 22 Back Road, Shapleigh, Maine.

2. The property is located in the General Purpose District and according to the assessor contains 14.47 acres.

3. The applicants are before the board for an Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit to put in 3 rows of solar panels, known as a solar panel array, to produce electricity for all the existing municipal buildings.

4. Received was a copy of the Town Tax Map 7, highlighting Lot 5; an aerial view of the lot noting the acreage, distance from the panels to Route 11 (approx. 75 feet), distance from the panels to Hodgdon Road (approx. 200 feet), and the area to be taken up by the panels (approx. 100’ x 150’). Also received was a project description from ReVision Energy which included the system size (71.3 kW), annual generation (94,201 kWh), municipal electricity load offset (99%), annual carbon offset (87,701 lbs.), and total project cost of $215,095. Additional information included description of the Power Purchase Agreement (which noted a projected 40-year savings of more than $300,000), ReVision’s PPA Project Experience, and the dates of the Public Information Forums, those being November 17th at 7 PM (already held) and February 18, 2017 at 10 AM – both held at the Shapleigh Town Hall.

5. The board reviewed the Basic Performance Standards and the board concurred the application met all the standards imposed.

6. The board reviewed Zoning Ordinance §105-54, ‘Solar considerations’ and concurred the application and information as presented met the standards applicable in this chapter.

7. The board reviewed Zoning Ordinance §105-73, Section G, ‘Standards applicable to conditional uses’ and concurred the application and information as presented met the performance standards in this chapter.

8. A notice was mailed to all abutters within 500 feet of the property on January 11, 2017. Meetings were held on January 10, 2017 and January 24, 2017. A public hearing was held on January 24, 2017.

9. The Planning Board unanimously agreed to approve the Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit to place a solar panel array to produce electricity for the municipal buildings in Shapleigh, to be located on Map 7, Lot 5, per the plans provided.

Motion:

After careful consideration and a review of all material presented to the Board, including the review of the Zoning Ordinance ‘Basic Performance Standards’, Zoning Ordinance, §105-54, ‘Solar considerations’ and §105-73, Section G, ‘Standards applicable to conditional uses’ a motion was made on Tuesday, January 24, 2017, to approve the Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit to place a solar panel array to produce electricity for the municipal buildings in Shapleigh, to be located on Map 7, Lot 5, per the plans provided.

Shapleigh Planning Board Meeting – 1/24/17 Page 7 of 13

Vote:

By a unanimous vote of 5 – 0, the motion to approve the Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit to place a solar panel array to produce electricity for the municipal buildings in Shapleigh, to be located on Map 7, Lot 5, per the plans provided was accepted.

Decision:

The Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit to place a solar panel array to produce electricity for the municipal buildings in Shapleigh, to be located on Map 7, Lot 5, per the plans provided was approved.

---------------------------------------

Best Possible Location – Replace Foundation and Septic – Map 17, Lot 27 (108 30th Street) – Roland and Carol Cote, Applicants

Mr. and Mrs. Cote were present for the review of the application.

The applicants had provided board members, along with a copy of the application, a copy of a portion of Tax Map 17 highlighting the location of their lot; a portion of a survey plan depicting the location of the existing 1 ¼ story camp and attached stairs in relation to the lot lines, 30th Street and high water mark; the survey also noted the location of an existing retaining wall, trees, proposed leach bed, location of the 50 and 75 foot setbacks to the road, location of the 100 foot setback to the high water mark and elevation markers for the lot. A copy of the Subsurface Wastewater Disposal System Variance Request and Disposal System Application were received, dated 3-24-16, drafted by Kenneth Gardner, SE #73.

The application description for the project reads as follows: Excavate dilapidated foundation & pilings – replace with poured concrete footings & foundation – remove septic holding tank, create septic system per submitted application. Additional project description was provided from Roland Cote, dated December 13, 2016 which reads as follows: We would like to raise the camp 14 feet + or – to remove deteriorating foundation and replace with a new poured foundation and position the camp back on its original position approximately 1 foot higher than it is now. We are also asking for a permit to install a new septic system as there is no septic system present. We may need to remove trees near to the foundation to eliminate weakening of root structure of marked trees. There may be a need to remove several trees to allow installation of the septic system. All trees in question are marked with yellow tape and marked on attached print. Trees would be removed only if necessary. We will replace all trees with ones that are required and will lay down the necessary gravel / mulch etc. to stop any erosion. Raising of camp will be done by Chase Building Movers from Wells, Maine. Foundation work to be done by Raymond Pelletier. Excavation and Septic System to be installed by Peter Payeur. Note: The applicants informed the board the excavator will now be William Plante.

This evening the applicants provided the board with a new site plan which showed the location of the existing structure, as well as the proposed location of the new structure. The plan also had the location of trees to be cut and where the applicants would be placing replacement trees. In addition, a description page was provided entitled ‘Revised Plan for Lifting & Moving Camp per Planning Board’s Request’. This page stated the following:

• Print shows camp in its existing location in light lines.

• New location is highlighted in dark lines showing new measurements from the water line & retaining walls.

• Due to requested movement of camp further away from water & retaining walls, several trees will have to be removed in order for the excavation work to be done. This will satisfy the septic design & installation & movement of camp to its new location. Trees to be removed are highlighted in pink.

Shapleigh Planning Board Meeting – 1/24/17 Page 8 of 13

• All 8 trees will be replaced by trees that are to code.

• All excavated areas that need to be filled will be done with stump grindings, crushed stone, shrubs & any other mulch needed to prevent erosion.

• Any retaining walls that are partially damaged will also be repaired.

Also provided this evening was a copy of the Permit by Rule mailed on 1/13/16, along with a copy of the check mailed. Cameron Adams, Environmental Specialist of the MDEP, emailed Mr. Cote on 1/25/17, stating that the PBR application for the foundation replacement/camp relocation was approved.

Roger A. opened the discussion by asking if there were any questions for Mr. & Mrs. Cote? Madge B. stated her question continues to be the existing wall, whether or not it will be damaged during reconstruction of the foundation. She said she realized there would now be more room between the wall and the new foundation since the camp has been moved back, but she wasn’t sure the wall would still be unaffected. Roger A. didn’t think it would be an issue because of the height of the wall in that location, due to the low height of the wall in that area. Mr. Cote agreed and said it was pretty flat in that area. Madge said, ok, she just wanted to be sure as she didn’t feel qualified to know the answer, since she never had to excavate. Mr. Cote said he wouldn’t call it a retaining wall in that location, it was more like rocks on the ground.

Madge B. said the only thing the board didn’t have was plantings between the house and the wall. Madge stated it had been said that the area would be filled with stump grindings, crushed stone and then it spoke of shrubs and any other mulch required. She wanted to know if plantings were needed and asked which way this area sloped with respect to the water. The Cote’s said it sloped toward the water. Madge said then it was important to be sure whatever is put into place will either hold water or absorb water, so it won’t go into the lake. Roger A. agreed saying it will have to absorb water because any water coming off the new structure will put pressure on the existing wall. He felt it would have to be well stoned.

CEO McDonough said if it was the wall they were just speaking of, it was just determined it wasn’t really a wall. Ann H. said that is what she was thinking and asked if it was layers of rocks? Mr. Cote said the wall closest to the water is relatively flat, it is more like landscaping. Mr. Cote said there were gutters on the roof that helped but he said they will do what they need to do to prevent erosion toward the water.

Mr. Cote said he sent the DEP more pictures and they didn’t think the wall had to be rebuilt, just maintained or fixed. He noted the Permit by Rule was permitted for the relocation of the camp.

Madge B. told the Cote’s that the planting plan is typically quite detailed and the board would need to know where the bushes, shrubs, trees, etc. would be located because the Code Enforcement Officer will have to go out and determine if what they have done was what the board approved. Mrs. Cote said they didn’t know what to do, they were going by what William Plante said (excavator for the project) and he said he would do whatever he had to do to prevent erosion, such as crushed stone and mulch. Diane S. said, “But that’s not vegetation, crushed stone isn’t vegetation”. Mrs. Cote said the trees would be on the border of the property because they can’t be planted over the septic system.

Mr. Cote said that by moving the camp back and turning it, it will require additional trees to be removed. Madge B. said she understood that. Ann H. asked if William Plante used a landscape company? Mrs. Cote said he was only talking about crushed stone and mulch. Ann asked about the shrubs. Mrs. Cote said, “That would be our responsibility”. Mr. Cote agreed.

CEO McDonough said it will be assumed the trees on the plan will be required to be taken down. Mr. Cote said, right. CEO McDonough asked why the new trees would be planted along the border line? Is it because of the location of the new septic system? Madge B. wasn’t sure. CEO McDonough said the

Shapleigh Planning Board Meeting – 1/24/17 Page 9 of 13

leachfield appeared to be fairly far from where the trees will be placed, so he wanted to know why they couldn’t put the replacement trees in close proximity to those being removed. Roger A. agreed, that it was up on top near the road. Mrs. Cote said, “Maybe we can.” CEO McDonough stated that replanting the trees along the property line is circumnavigating the law. Mrs. Cote said she didn’t know where they could plant trees. She didn’t think they could plant them near where the septic system was. CEO McDonough agreed but said the septic system wasn’t anywhere near the existing trees according to the plan.

CEO McDonough read §105-4.D(7)[1][a] ‘Relocation of a non-conforming structure’; ‘Trees, woody vegetation and ground cover.’ ‘Trees removed in order to relocate a structure must be replanted with at least one native tree, six feet in height, measured from the base of the trunk to the top of the tree, for every tree removed. If more than five trees are planted, no one species of tree shall make up more than 50% of the number of trees planted. Replaced trees must be planted no further from the water or wetland than the trees that were removed.’

Mr. Cote said they just have to be clustered but no further from the water. Madge B. said, right. CEO McDonough, looking at the plan, didn’t see a reason why some trees can’t be placed between the house and the leach bed, he felt lining them up along the property line was circumnavigating the ordinance.

Diane S. asked what the distance was from the corner of the house to the high water line. Roger A. said, 36 feet. Diane noted that the plan said 36 + or – and the other corner to the water said 45 + or -, these measurements have to be exact, not plus or minus. She also stated that the board would need the measurements from the rear corner of the house to the side lot line on both sides of the house to get an exact location. She showed them on the plan. She told the applicants it has to be on the plan. Mrs. Cote asked if the board was ok with the distances to the water. Diane S. said, “Yup”. Diane said, “You need it from the point of the house to the property line and from the point of the house to the property line, because you are actually turning the house. What happens if it is a little cockeyed? It has to be exactly where you say you are going to put it.” Mrs. Cote said, “So we go back to him and have him measure.” Diane said, “Yes”.

Madge B. said a surveyor has to be mark the corners when they dig the hole. Mr. Cote asked if it has to be done before they dig the holes? CEO McDonough said it didn’t have to be done prior to, but if the foundation goes in and it is not in the correct location there is a problem, therefore, it is best to locate the corner of the foundation prior to pouring it. Diane S. also noted that if they have a surveyor pin the locations then the neighbor cannot say they are too close to the property line.

Roger A. read §105-4.D(3) ‘Foundations’, ‘Whenever a new, enlarged or replacement foundation is constructed under a nonconforming structure, the structure and the new foundation must be placed such that the setback requirement is met to the greatest practical extent as determined by the Planning Board, basing its decision on the criteria specified in Subsection D(7), Relocation, below.

Roger A. then reviewed §105-4.D(7)

(7) Relocation.

(a) A nonconforming structure may be relocated within the boundaries of the parcel on which the structure is located, provided that the site of relocation conforms to all setback requirements to the greatest practical extent as determined by the Planning Board, and provided that the applicant demonstrates that the present subsurface sewage disposal system meets the requirements of state law and the State of Maine Subsurface Wastewater Disposal Rules, or that a new system can

be installed in compliance with the law and said Rules. In no case shall a structure be relocated in a manner that causes the structure to be more nonconforming.

Shapleigh Planning Board Meeting – 1/24/17 Page 10 of 13

(b) In determining whether the building relocation meets the setback to the greatest practical extent, the Planning Board shall consider the size of the lot, the slope of the land, the potential for soil erosion, the location of other structures on the property and on adjacent properties, the location of the septic

system and other on-site soils suitable for septic systems and the type and amount of vegetation to be removed to accomplish the relocation. When it is necessary to remove vegetation within the water or wetland setback area in order to relocate a structure, the Planning Board shall require replanting of native vegetation to compensate for the destroyed vegetation. In addition, the area from which the relocated structure was removed must be replanted with vegetation. Replanting shall be required as follows:

[1] Trees, woody vegetation and ground cover.

[a] Trees removed in order to relocate a structure must be replanted with at least one native tree, three (3) feet in height, for every tree removed. If more than five trees are planted, no one species of tree shall make up more than 50% of the number of trees planted. Replaced trees must be planted no further from the water or wetland than the trees that were removed.

[b] Other woody and herbaceous vegetation, and ground cover, that are removed or destroyed in order to relocate a structure must be re-established. An area at least the same size as the area where vegetation and/or ground cover was disturbed, damaged, or removed must be established within the setback area. The vegetation and/or ground cover must consist of similar native vegetation and/or ground cover that was disturbed, destroyed or removed.

[2] Where feasible, when a structure is relocated on a parcel the original location of the structure shall be replanted with vegetation which may consist of grasses, shrubs, trees, or a combination thereof.

(c) 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 A. said that is why the board is concerned with the vegetation and the trees. Madge B. said at this time it is hard to know what is there now. Roger thought it might be pine spills. Mrs. Cote agreed saying there weren’t really any plants around the house. Madge B. thought because there isn’t any plantings in the front then they needn’t add any. Madge said they still need to figure out how to keep stormwater from creating an erosion issue.

Roger A. reviewed §105-51-3, it read as follows:

§ 105-51.3. Revegetation Requirements.

When revegetation is required in response to violations of the vegetation standards set forth in Section 105- 51, to address the removal of non-native invasive species of vegetation, or as a mechanism to allow for development that may otherwise not be permissible due to the vegetation standards, including removal of vegetation in conjunction with a shoreline stabilization project, the revegetation must comply with the following requirements.

A. The property owner must submit a revegetation plan, prepared with and signed by a qualified professional, that describes revegetation activities and maintenance. The plan must include a scaled site plan, depicting where vegetation was, or is to be removed, where existing vegetation is to remain, and where vegetation is to be planted, including a list of all vegetation to be planted.

B. Revegetation must occur along the same segment of shoreline and in the same area where vegetation was removed and at a density comparable to the pre-existing vegetation, except where a shoreline stabilization activity does not allow revegetation to occur in the same area and at a density comparable to the pre-existing vegetation, in which case revegetation must occur along the same segment of shoreline and as close as possible to the area where vegetation was removed.

Shapleigh Planning Board Meeting – 1/24/17 Page 11 of 13

C. If part of a permitted activity, revegetation shall occur before the expiration of the permit. If the activity or revegetation is not completed before the expiration of the permit, a new revegetation plan shall be submitted with any renewal or new permit application.

D. Revegetation activities must meet the following requirements for trees and saplings:

(1) All trees and saplings removed must be replaced with native noninvasive species;

(2) Replacement vegetation must at a minimum consist of saplings;

(3) If more than six (6) trees or saplings are planted, then at least three (3) different species shall be used;

(4) No one species shall make up 50% or more of the number of trees and saplings planted;

(5) If revegetation is required for a shoreline stabilization project, and it is not possible to plant trees and saplings in the same area where trees or saplings were removed, then trees or saplings must be planted in a location that effectively reestablishes the screening between the shoreline and structures; and

(6) A survival rate of at least eighty (80) percent of planted trees or saplings is required for a minimum five (5) year period.

E. Revegetation activities must meet the following requirements for woody vegetation and other vegetation under three (3) feet in height:

(1) All woody vegetation and vegetation under three (3) feet in height must be replaced with native noninvasive species of woody vegetation and vegetation under three (3) feet in height as applicable;

(2) Woody vegetation and vegetation under three (3) feet in height shall be planted in quantities and variety sufficient to prevent erosion and provide for effective infiltration of stormwater;

(3) If more than three (3) woody vegetation plants are to be planted, then at least three (3) different species shall be planted;

(4) No one species shall make up 50% or more of the number of planted woody vegetation plants; and

(5) Survival of planted woody vegetation and vegetation under three feet in height must be sufficient to remain in compliance with the standards contained within this chapter for minimum of five (5) years.

F. Revegetation activities must meet the following requirements for ground vegetation and ground cover:

(1) All ground vegetation and ground cover removed must be replaced with native herbaceous vegetation, in quantities and variety sufficient to prevent erosion and provide for effective infiltration of stormwater;

(2) Where necessary due to a lack of sufficient ground cover, an area must be supplemented with a minimum four (4) inch depth of leaf mulch and/or bark mulch to prevent erosion and provide for effective infiltration of stormwater; and

(3) Survival and functionality of ground vegetation and ground cover must be sufficient to remain in compliance with the standards contained within this chapter for minimum of five (5) years.

Roger A. asked what the time line was? Mrs. Cote thought they would begin in March. Roger asked if it would be completed by fall? Mr. Cote said, yes.

Ann H. asked if the application could get approved today with a condition that they bring in a planting plan by a certain date, like in April? Diane S. believed the board would want to look at the replanting plan to be sure it was done correctly. Mrs. Cote asked if they need a professional to do the plan? Roger A. said the ordinance states that a professional has to design the plan. Ann said if they go to a nursery, such as

Shapleigh Planning Board Meeting – 1/24/17 Page 12 of 13

Springvale Nursery and you tell them you live in the shoreland district and where, and what you are going to do, they will design something because they do it for various towns. They know the ordinance requirements and they will ask you what type of plants you like.

Mr. Cote said that quite a few trees were removed near their property and there hasn’t been any replanting, why is that? Diane S. said, they probably did it illegally. CEO McDonough asked who the owner was? Mr. Cote told them where the property was located. CEO McDonough stated that he may have permitted it but he would have to look at his records.

Mrs. Cote said that what they needed was a regrowth plan. Roger A. said, yes, we need what will be done on your property to replace the existing trees, and what will be done for stabilization. Mrs. Cote said they also need the measurement from the edge of the house to the border. Diane S. said, yes. Mr. Cote said that this is required before any excavation begins. Diane said, yes, have them measure it and put it on the plan.

Mr. Cote asked if there needed to be location pins in now. Roger A. said, no, once the measurements are done they need to be put on the plan for the board. Mr. Cote asked if it was just the two measurements. The board said, yes.

Diane S. told applicants that York County Soils and Water could also help them with a replanting plan? Mrs. Cote asked where they were located? Roger A. thought they were in the basement of Nason in Springvale. Diane thought they could look it up on line.

Roger A. said with respect to the trees, the board will need to know what species they will be. Mr. Cote said that listening to Roger earlier, it sounded like there had to be three different varieties. Roger said, yes, two could be pine, two could be hemlock, two could be birch. He said these need to be indicated on the plan for Code Enforcement to be able to use the plan for his final inspection.

Roger A. said that any deviation to the final approved plan will have to come back to the Planning Board for approval, so everything that is going to take place needs to be on the plan and then done to what is on the plan. He noted that what is on the plan, that is the only thing that can take place, so it has to be done right. This could slow the project down if the information isn’t correct. Ann H. said this also protects the applicants from others who may comment on what is taking place. Roger added that this also protects them with the DEP.

Mrs. Cote said that they will not be able to be at the next meeting on February 14th, they will be on vacation. She hoped they would have the information for the board on February 28th.

CEO McDonough asked them if they were going to use the existing well? They said they believed so. He asked if they had any intention of putting in a new well. Mrs. Cote said they might have to put in a different pump but they would not be moving the location. Mrs. Cote asked if it was ok to do so? CEO McDonough said it was fine to use the existing well. He just didn’t want to get to the job site and see a new road built because a new well was being put in, without having a plan in place.

Roger A. said for the 28th of February the board will need the distance from the corner of the house to the side lots lines and a revegetation plan. Mr. Cote said, so those two items only and then they should be ok.

Nothing further was discussed.

Shapleigh Planning Board Meeting – 1/24/17 Page 13 of 13

Other:

Ann H. spoke about some studies done on the effects of marijuana on people. She said one article she read was that marijuana was legal in the United States until 1937, when the marijuana tax act was created and it remained legal until 1970 and then it turned into a controlled substance. She said there were different tiers of controlled substances. Alcohol is considered a certain level of controlled substance too. She found the article interesting, how they were going to figure out how they would determine if someone was impaired.

Roland L. asked what the short version was about the article. Ann H. said you could test people to see how much marijuana is in their system, by bloodwork and urine. The thing is from a medical standpoint your body type determines how long you keep it in your system. She said a thin person could have it in their system for 7 years, you could test positive, even if you haven’t done anything with it. She said there are ways to test, such as with the alcohol sobriety test, there are ways to see if someone is stoned based on reflexes. She said the articles were interesting.

Ann H. said the reason there is no extensive research on marijuana is it isn’t approved by the FDA, so there is no money for research.

Nothing further was discussed.

************************

Growth Permits – There are growth permits available.

************************

The Planning Board meeting ended at 7:40 p.m.

On Tuesday, February 14th, there will be a public hearing held for the proposed Ordinance Prohibiting Retail Marijuana Establishments and Retail Marijuana Social Clubs in the Municipality of Shapleigh, Maine. The hearing will begin at 6:00 p.m.

The next meeting will be held Tuesday, February 14, 2017 at 6:30 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 6:00 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 6:30 p.m. Please contact the Land Use Secretary if there is a question in scheduling, 207-636-2844, x404.

NOTE: Beginning on the 1st meeting in November, the Planning Board shall meet beginning at 6:30 p.m. This schedule remains in effect until the first week in April.

Respectively submitted,

Barbara Felong,

Land Use Secretary planningboard@shapleigh.net