|April 13, 2018|
SHAPLEIGH PLANNING BOARD
Tuesday, March 27, 2018
Members in attendance: Roger Allaire (Chairman), Steve Foglio (Vice Chairman), Madge Baker, Roland Legere, Maggie Moody, Alternate Ann Harris, as well as Barbara Felong (Secretary). Code Enforcement Officer Steven McDonough was also in attendance.
Minutes are not verbatim, unless in quotes “”
The minutes from Wednesday, March 14, 2018 were accepted as read.
The planning board meeting started at 6:30 p.m.
Conditional Use Permit – Replace Wall & Stairs – Map 26, Lot 32 (121 21st Street) – David Levesque, Applicant; Steve Roux, Property Owner
Mr. Levesque was present for the review of the application.
Provided along with the application was a copy of the Permit by Rule Notification Form dated 3-5-18 by the applicant; a copy of what appears to be the town map showing the location of the property; a sketch depicting 2 sets of stairs to be replaced, the location of an existing dwelling and boat house, a 22’ long rock retaining wall to be replaced, an existing retaining wall and stairs that will remain; and the location of Mousam Lake in relation to the project. Also received was an email authorizing Mr. Levesque to act on behalf of the applicant, Mr. Steve Roux; it is dated March 3, 2018.
The detailed description of the project is as follows: (Also entitled Maine DEP Permit by Rule Explanation)
The activity that we are proposing to perform at 121 21st Street in Shapleigh, ME is the replacement of 2 hazardous sets of stairs and 1 deteriorating rock retaining wall. The work is adjacent to Mousam Lake in Shapleigh, ME. One set of stairs is an access to the lake and the other is an access to an existing boat house. Neither set of stairs meet current code and present a hazard to the owners. We are proposing to replace these stairs with new granite stairs and paving stone landings. This will allow us to keep to grades as they are now and help to minimize soil disturbance on the site.
We are also proposing to replace the rock retaining wall, which is beginning to fall apart, with a new precast concrete retaining wall as manufactured by Genest Concrete in Sanford, ME. The block color will be ‘granite’ in color in order to keep the site looking as natural as possible.
Erosion control measures will be installed in order to prevent any soil migration.
Roger A. asked Mr. Levesque to let the board know what he intended to do. Mr. Levesque stated he currently had a customer who had stairs that were constructed of wood with a gravel landing, and they are hazardous the way they are designed. He said the other set of stairs was concrete with varying sizes of risers, so he felt they were hazardous as designed as well. The owner wanted to replace both with granite steps, with deeper landings to make the rise and run work. There is also a 2 foot tall rock wall that is falling down, they would like to replace it with one the same size in the same location.
Page 1 of 5
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – March 27, 2018 Page 2 of 5
Mr. Levesque stated there was a retaining wall down near the water that they were not proposing to change, as it is in good shape.
Mr. Levesque stated there was a pending Permit by Rule. He said he spoke with Cameron Adams (MDEP) and he had requested several more pieces of information which he has provided. He believed the permit would be accepted.
Roger A. asked about a time frame. Mr. Levesque stated he believed he would be starting the project in April or May. Roger asked how long the project would take to complete? Mr. Levesque thought a total of 2 weeks.
Roland L. asked where the material to be moved would be taken? Mr. Levesque thought the amount of material removed would be minimal. He said the rock wall would be moved and because the area was so tight, the material would have to be removed by hand. Mr. Levesque stated that any material removed from the site would get trucked to his pit in Lebanon.
Ann H. asked if the stairs would be the same width as the existing? Mr. Levesque said the concrete one would be wider, the existing varies from 18” to even smaller. Mr. Levesque asked CEO McDonough what was allowed? CEO McDonough stated, “Code states a minimum of three feet wide.”
Steve F. asked, “Are you going down a few steps and land and down a few steps and land?” Mr. Levesque stated that that was probably how it would be built. He said, “Two risers, a landing, two risers, a landing.” He said that until they get in, remove the old steps and take some shots, they won’t know exactly. Steve asked if there was a maximum on the number of steps? CEO McDonough said, “There is a maximum vertical rise of steps before you have to have a landing, 12 feet.” He said, after looking at the sketch, it would not apply here. Steve asked Mr. Levesque what he would be doing? Mr. Levesque stated, “Two six inch risers and then maybe a three foot landing.”
Roland L. asked Mr. Levesque if they were going to have to do any landscaping? Mr. Levesque said they would be keeping it as tight as possible because they were doing hand shoveling. He didn’t think they would be disturbing a large area, so he didn’t see a need. Roland asked if the area was under snow at this time? Mr. Levesque said at this time it was. He noted that in terms of vegetation there was not much. He said they would entertain suggestions. CEO McDonough said that there would be a certain amount of disturbed soil. Mr. Levesque agreed and asked if he could use erosion control mulch. He said again it would be minimal. Perhaps in the area near the wall. He said there would be 18” of crushed stone behind the wall at the top. He said if it was his house he would leave it crushed stone for drainage. Steve thought that after the site inspection the board would have a better idea of what might be needed. Ann H. thought the applicant should decide if they want the gravel or mulch. Mr. Levesque said he understood.
CEO McDonough stated he would like to see on the plan, in the 18” area that will be disturbed, what will be placed after the project is completed, stone or mulch.
Roger A. stated a site inspection would be done prior to the next meeting on Tuesday, April 10th at 7:00 p.m. A notice to abutters will be mailed as well. Members will meet at the Town Hall.
He asked Mr. Levesque to speak with the owner to have a plan of what they wanted to do with the destabilized areas. Mr. Levesque stated, “OK”. He asked board members if erosion control mulch was acceptable? Steve F. stated, “Yes”.
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – March 27, 2018 Page 3 of 5
Mr. Levesque asked if it always took two meetings for a project? Roger A. explained it was a two meeting process, as the first meeting the board reviews the application to see if any additional information is required, then a notice to abutters must be mailed out within 10 days of the final review, per the ordinance which is a State requirement. Then a final meeting is held. This also gives members time to review the site prior to making a decision, and for the 14 day DEP notification to take place. Mr. Levesque stated, “OK.”
Nothing further was discussed.
Conditional Use Permit – Marina – Map 19, Lot 8 (17 Emery Mills Road) – Marc Boisse, Applicant; Wayne Berry, Property Owner
Roger A. had Ann H. sit in as a regular member for this review, as both Roland L. and Steve F. had recused themselves from review of this application.
Roger A. stated that the marina application was well beyond the 90 days allowed to table an application. He asked if the board wanted to entertain a motion to dispense with the application? Barbara F. noted that Mr. Berry spoke with her on the telephone and stated he was not ready to bring additional information back to the board at this time. He felt he may not be ready before summer. Barbara explained to him that he would need to re-apply and could use the information provided to date, along with the additional information the board has requested. He stated that he understood.
Madge B. moved to dispense with the application, as the 90 days to table an application by the board or applicant had been exceeded. The last date of review for this application was November 14, 2017. Maggie 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. By a vote of 4 – 0, the motion passed unanimously.
Nothing further was discussed.
Steve F. stated that he thought it would be a good idea to add the CEO to the list of people receiving information from the applicant, so he could review it prior to the meeting. CEO McDonough thought it was a good idea as well. He noted that the applications state that the applicant is to meet with the CEO prior to going to the Planning Board and often this is ignored. Steve felt this is why he wanted the information provided before the meeting, so the CEO isn’t blindsided or at least has the material to look at while the board is discussing it. Barbara F. will add the CEO requirement to the application.
Madge B. wanted to speak about the issue with the current subdivision before the board, with respect to regulating docks. She did not feel the board had the ability to regulate docks but she wanted a legal opinion if members felt they would start regulating them. She didn’t know how the board could start regulating them when typically anyone with waterfront property was allowed to have a dock.
Roland L. noted that the area where Kettle Pond Cabins are, originally had a 4’ x 6’ long dock and then they went to having 1100 sf of docking space. Roland said his concern with the project before the board was he heard someone speaking about the subdivision and minimizing the impact in the area due to the shallow water. He felt it was best to bring it up prior to taking a vote on the subdivision.
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – March 27, 2018 Page 4 of 5
Steve F. did not feel the board had jurisdiction over the water, from the high water mark out into the water. Roger A. did not believe the board had jurisdiction but if the board tried to regulate the dock, the board would need enough criteria, so it would hold up in court. Ann H. didn’t think the board would get enough facts to say no dock should be allowed. Madge B. said the only question that was posed is whether or not three docks would have an adverse impact vs one, she thought CEO McDonough brought that up at the last meeting.
Roland L. thought it could be brought up, because it was the first of the standards in the Ordinance. Roger A. disagreed, it was not in the subdivision ordinance, it was in zoning. Roland asked if those would apply? Madge B. said the subdivision book is where the criteria is. Roland said he did not have that book with him. He asked if subdivision looked at the impact on spawning grounds and wildlife. Madge B. said, “Even if it did, we are going to have to have a biologist come in to decide that.” CEO McDonough said, “If I decided to play devil’s advocate, and if I was the applicant, I would say ‘it is not zoned resource protection or anything special, there is no high value vegetation in this area, and there are a couple of thousand boats on this lake and I have a right to have one too.” He said that would be his argument. Roland said, “As long as we can say something like that if, and it is a big if, if someone questions us on that particular point.” Madge said when the board was discussing this, in the minutes it states, ‘Mr. Stanley said that all docks have to come out for the winter’. Madge said that arguably the docks are not even permanent. Ann H. asked if they had to come out when it was a subdivision? Madge B. and CEO McDonough both stated that it was a State law. Ann asked about the old docks that stay in year round? CEO McDonough stated that there are probably a handful of wooden docks and piers that stay in but docks themselves are supposed to come out. Roger said that if a dock stays in year round, you need a permit from the Bureau of Submerged Lands. Ann said there are a lot of rotten docks. CEO McDonough told her to contact the State.
Madge B., referring back to the minutes of the last meeting, noted that Roland said it wasn’t the docks he was concerned about ‘but the activity related to the dock, specifically the size of the motor’. She asked why the board was getting so fussed about docks, it was the motors that destroy habitat. Maggie M. noted that if you have a dock with a canoe next to it, it would not be an issue. Roger A. said the biggest concern was with motor size because you would have to have a long dock. You wouldn’t be able to start the motor.
Madge B. said she wanted to bring it up now, so the board didn’t bring it up the next time. She noted that Steve F. said at the last meeting that if the board prevented motorized boats it would not stop anyone else from going into the cove. Steve believed if the subdivision did not go through, the landowner could still go out and put a dock in or multiple docks. He said he shared the concern with water quality but he didn’t believe there is a way to fix it. Roger A. agreed that he didn’t feel the board could come up with enough criteria to say the applicant could not put in a dock or have a motorized boat. Madge noted again that this area isn’t mapped as having a rare habitat, therefore the board does not have a lot to work with. Steve believed if it was mapped as a wildlife habitat, it would be a different story. CEO McDonough agreed. Roger didn’t see that the board could put restrictions on these three docks, whereas anyone else in the area could have a dock.
Madge B. thanked the board for discussing this. She felt this was not something the board should regulate in this subdivision. The other members agreed.
Nothing further was discussed.
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – March 27, 2018 Page 5 of 5
Growth Permits –
Map 11, Lot 23H (Newfield Road) GP #04-18
The board reviewed the lot and noted it met the minimum lot size requirements. It is also part of an approved subdivision.
Map 4, Lot 45C (Walnut Hill Road) GP #03-18
This Growth Permit was being re-issued as it had expired in 2017, because the permit holder never was able to obtain a building permit within the 90 day time frame.
The Planning Board meeting ended at 7:15 p.m.
NOTE: The summer hours are in effect beginning the first meeting in April, the meetings will begin at 7:30 p.m. and public hearings will be held at 7:00 p.m.
The next meeting will be held Tuesday, April 10, 2018 at 7:30 p.m. The Planning Board meets the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each month unless it falls on a holiday or Election Day. Any scheduled public hearing takes place at 7:00 p.m. prior to the scheduled meeting. Also, should there be a cancellation due to a storm event, holiday or Election, the meeting will typically be held the following Wednesday, also at 7:30 p.m. Please contact the Land Use Secretary if there is a question in scheduling, 207-636-2844, x404.
Land Use Secretary email@example.com
April 19, 2018 9:50 AM