July 02, 2016  3:19 AM 
May 25, 2016
Other Notices
April 29, 2016
April 13, 2016
March 25, 2016



May 10, 2016

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


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


The Public Hearing started at 7:05 p.m.

Conditional Use Permit – In-home Child Day Care – Map 6, Lot 21 (342 Back Road) – Anjuli Madison, Applicant

Mrs. Madison was present for the review of her application, along with Mr. Madison.

Roger A. opened the public hearing by asking Mrs. Madison to state her intentions. Mrs. Madison stated she wanted to open a child day care service for ages one to twelve. She said she would be caring for four or five children to start and may expand to more in the future. She stated these children would join her three children. Roger asked for the total number of children she would have for a maximum. Mrs. Madison stated she would ask for twelve (12), as that is the maximum amount allowed by the State, but to begin it would be four or five full time children and there may be before and after school care for siblings. Roger agreed it would be best to ask for the maximum amount of twelve, otherwise if she expanded that number, she would have to return to the board for an amendment to her approval.

Roger A. asked what the hours of operation would be? Mrs. Madison stated the hours of operation would be 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Roger asked how many days per week? Mrs. Madison stated five, Monday thru Friday.

Roger A. asked if she would have an assistant. Mrs. Madison stated her sister-in-law may volunteer once a month on a Monday if she had to leave for a doctor’s appointment for her child, where she will be having an infant there will be appointments required. She stated that when she applied to the State, she also had them do a background check for her sister-in-law and all other paperwork necessary for her to be able to step in as needed. She stated she would not be a paid employee, just someone to step in for an hour or two. She said there would be no employees, the day care will be run sorely by her.

Roger A. stated there are age limits with respect to the number of people required per age group. Mrs. Madison stated that she was aware of that.

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

The public hearing closed at 7:10 p.m.


The planning board meeting started at 7:30 p.m.

Page 1 of 10

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 10, 2016 Page 2 of 10

The minutes from Tuesday, April 26, 2016 were accepted as read.


Conditional Use Permit – In-home Child Day Care – Map 6, Lot 21 (342 Back Road) – Anjuli Madison, Applicant

Mrs. Madison was present for the review of her application, along with Mr. Madison.

At the initial review of the application, Mrs. Madison also provided a Septic Inspection Report done by Advanced Leachfields LLC of Westbrook, Maine, which stated the existing system which was installed in 1992 was designed for a six-bedroom home; a building sketch which shows the layout of the existing structures on site; and a boundary plan which shows existing structures in relation to the lot lines, existing right-of-way and Back Road. She also stated there were a few things she was told she needed to do to her home before opening such as putting a gate at the top of the stairs, putting a bumper in front of the existing fireplace and bumpers around the island in the kitchen. Mrs. Madison intention was to start advertising her business in May, conduct interviews in June, and open in July.

Roger A. began review of the pertinent ordinances for a child day care facility for up to 12 children.

105-21 – Traffic. Roger A. stated access to the site was safe (minimum site distance in this location is 315 feet at 45 mph). Roger stated at the site inspection it was noted the site distance was in excess of 315 feet.

105-22 – Noise. There will be no noise generated from the activity, other than children playing in the backyard.

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 additional lighting added to the home.

105-26 – Stormwater runoff. There are no changes being made to the existing structures or property that would cause a stormwater problem.

105-27 – Erosion control. There are no changes being made to the existing structures or property that would cause an erosion problem.

105-28 – Setbacks and screening. All activity will take place within or behind the home. No activity shall take place in the front yard.

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 being stored outside. Water quality should be monitored but it is not required by the Planning Board.

105-31 – Preservation of landscape; landscaping of parking and storage areas. There are no changes being made to the site with respect to the landscape.

105-32 - Relation of proposed building to the environment. The existing building(s) fits in well with the surrounding area.

105-33 – Refuse disposal. Refuse will be removed by the applicant.

105-40.1 – Child day care.

A. A child day-care home or center may be conducted as a conditional use.

Roger A. stated that this is why the applicant was before the board.

B. A child day-care home shall be allowed in a single-family dwelling located on a residential lot that meets the minimum lot size requirement, providing care for up to 12 children, which charges for their care and which holds all legally required licenses and approvals by the Town of Shapleigh and the State of Maine.

Roger A. stated the lot was greater than 2 acres in size so the minimum lot size is met.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 10, 2016 Page 3 of 10

(1) A child day-care home may also include part-time care. “Part-time” in this use shall mean four hours per day, per child.

(2) The parking area shall be large enough to accommodate the two spaces required for the dwelling unit, as well as two additional spaces minimum.

Roger A. stated that it was important that the applicant not allow people to back out onto Back Road, so a turnaround area must be provided. Mr. Madison stated that her husband’s car would not be home as he would be at work and that her car would be in the garage, therefore, there will be ample room for vehicles to turn-around in her yard. She asked if she had to put it in writing that people needed to use the turn-around? Roger stated that she just needed to be sure they understood they had to use the turn-around area to prevent accidents. Mrs. Madison stated that she understood.

105-46 – Sanitary provisions. There is an existing State approved septic system on site for the home.

105-47– Signs and billboards. Any signage shall be obtained through the Code Enforcement Office.

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

Roger A. stated the conditions of permit would be as follows:

1) Vehicles shall not be allowed to back out onto the Back Road. All vehicles shall use the existing turn-around on site.

2) The hours of operations shall be 6:00 a.m. thru 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

3) The in-home day care shall not open for business until all required State permits are obtained and a copy of the permits are given to the Planning Board.

Maggie M. made the motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit for an in-home child day care for up to 12 children on Map 6, Lot 21, with the above stated three conditions. Madge B. 2nd the motion. All members were in favor. Motion passed unanimously, 5 – 0.

Nothing further was discussed.


The Findings of Facts

1. The owners of Shapleigh Tax Map 6, Lot 21, are Aaron and Anjuli Madison of 342 Back Road, Shapleigh Maine 04076. The property is located in the General Purpose District and according to the assessing file, the property is 2.79 acres in size.

2. The applicant is before the board for a Conditional Use Permit to open an in-home child day care for up to 12 children in the existing residence.

3. Received, along with the application, was a copy of a Building Sketch which depicted the size of the existing residence, showing the dimensions of the first and second floor, along with the size of an existing shed on site. Also provided was a parcel description showing the location of the existing structure on the property in relation to the lot lines and Back road; and a Site Inspection Report from

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 10, 2016 Page 4 of 10

Advanced Leachfields LLC, of Westbrook, Maine, which stated the existing septic system was installed in 1992 and was designed for a six-bedroom home.

4. Meetings were held on Tuesday, April 26, 2016 and Tuesday, May 10, 2016. A notice was mailed to all abutters within 500 feet of the property on April 27, 2016. A site inspection and a Public Hearing were held on May 10, 2016.

5. After careful consideration of all information received, the pertinent Zoning Ordinances, including §105-40.1 ‘Child day care’, the Planning Board unanimously agreed to approve the Conditional Use Permit to open an in-home child day care for up to 12 children on Shapleigh Tax Map 6, Lot 21, with three conditions.

6. The conditions of the permit are:

1) Vehicles shall not be allowed to back out onto the Back Road. All vehicles shall use the existing turn-around on site.

2) The hours of operations shall be 6:00 a.m. thru 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.

3) The in-home day care shall not open for business until all required State permits are obtained and a copy of the permits are given to the Planning Board.


After careful consideration and a review of all material presented to the Board, a motion was made on Tuesday, May 10, 2016, to approve the Conditional Use Permit for an in-home child day care for up to 12 children on Shapleigh Tax Map 6, Lot 21, with the above stated three conditions.


By a unanimous vote of 5 – 0, the motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit for an in-home child day care for up to 12 children on Shapleigh Tax Map 6, Lot 21 was accepted.


The Conditional Use Permit application for an in-home child day care for up to 12 children on Shapleigh Tax Map 6, Lot 21 was approved.


Amendment to a Conditional Use Permit – Additional Boat Storage Building – Map 3, Lot 16A (86 Emery Mills Road) – Mark Parker, Applicant

Mr. Parker was present for the review of the application, along with Jill Richards.

Board members did a site inspection prior to this evenings meeting.

At the initial review, Mr. Parker provided a preliminary site plan which depicted the proposed new structure which would be approximately 46 feet from the side lot line and 142 feet from State Route 109. The structure will be 104’ x 120’ in size. There is also a proposed gravel access to the new building depicted and part of the existing buildings on site that will be closest to the new structure. The plan is dated 4/13/2016 and drafted by Middle Branch Professional Land Surveyors, but it is noted on the plan ‘This Site Plan is for

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 10, 2016 Page 5 of 10

conceptual purposes only, no field work has been performed to verify the information shown hereon. The existing improvements shown hereon, were traced from an aerial overlay’.

Board members, during the meeting of Tuesday, April 26, 2016, stated that a stormwater plan would be required, as well as a revegetation plan prior to approval or additional review. Mr. Parker requested that the board do a site visit to decide if the proposed building location would meet their approval, because a stormwater plan or revegetation plan cannot be devised until the building location is known. Board members agreed to do a site inspection, which took place this evening.

Roger A. stated after the site inspection the board wanted to give some input on how to proceed. Roger said this was before the board as an amendment due to the fact there is an increase in floor space for the business. Roger said one of the things the board needs is a stormwater design. Roger noted under the standards applicable for a conditional use it states criteria for the permit, he cited (8) ‘A stormwater drainage system capable of handling a fifty-year storm without adverse impact on adjacent properties has been designed’; and (9) ‘Adequate provisions to control soil erosion and sedimentation have been made’. He stated these two items need to be addressed.

Roland L. asked if a revegetation plan would also be required? Madge B. stated, yes, and noted the board has stated it several times. She also believed the revegetation would help with the stormwater.

Roger A. reviewed §105-26 ‘Stormwater runoff’ and §105-27 ‘Erosion control’ in their entirety. Roger then read §105-34 ‘Access control on Routes 109 and 11’, which reads: ‘Land lying on Routes 109 and 11 may be divided into lots, but all vehicular movements to and from the highway shall be via a common driveway or entranceway serving adjacent lots or premises. All lots of record existing at the time of the ordinance amendment shall be allowed direct access to Routes 109 and 11, provided that minimum safe sight-distance standards can be met’. He noted that there may be a road put in temporarily to construct the new building but after construction is complete, the road will have to be closed off as no new access from Route 109 can be put in, they will have to use the existing entrance.

CEO McDonough asked Mr. Parker if he wanted a new access? Mr. Parker stated his only concern was if he needed a fire truck to get to the structure. Roger A. stated that with the way the ordinance is written all vehicles have to come through the existing driveway. Jill Richards asked why? Roger stated that they already have one entrance and that is all that is allowed. She stated that this is a new lot. CEO McDonough explained that the ordinance only allows existing lots to maintain their access onto Route 109. The purpose is to reduce the number of entrances as each creates a hazard coming onto a main road. Roger said if he himself owned the lot, he would have to see if he could join with a neighboring driveway for access. Ms. Richards asked if they could have a temporary entrance? Roger said they could but it would have to be removed once construction is complete.

Roger A. noted that the other entrance they have on the existing lot was in question in the past as to whether or not it was a legal entrance. Steve F. asked how long this has been in the ordinance. Roger was not certain but because there is no date listed, it has been in the ordinance for a long time.

Steve F. asked if the structure was going to be a metal building? Mr. Parker stated, yes. Ann H. stated there was concern if the existing area, where the gate is located, would be wide enough for a fire truck. Mr. Parker said he thought size wise a truck would be able to go thru because a pontoon boat will fit in that area. Maggie M. stated perhaps there should be a condition of approval that there is an area cleared and large enough for a fire truck to be able to access the new building.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 10, 2016 Page 6 of 10

Madge B. stated that after looking at the minutes from the previous meeting, what Mr. Parker wanted to know was if the proposed location of the new structure would be approved by the board. She thought the board should make a statement regarding this. She said she had no issue with the proposed location. She felt it was back far enough. Ann H. stated there was no way of knowing if putting a building in this location would make stormwater worse until a stormwater plan is created. Madge stated, correct. Madge agreed that it would be best to have no building there but if there is a building she felt the location was a good location. Roger A. and Diane S. agreed.

Madge B. thought Steve F. wanted the entrance wider from a fire perspective. Steve said he also wondered if there should be a Knox Lock Box on the gate, so the fire department has access. Roger A. stated that only one access can be utilized. Mr. Parker asked if he put the property in another name could he have a driveway on it. Roger said no, he would have to try to share a neighboring existing access. Steve said the State would allow the entrance but Shapleigh Ordinance would not. CEO McDonough stated that grandfathered lots would be granted a right-of-way but this is a new lot. Mr. Parker stated he understood.

Mr. Parker asked if he could change the location of the existing access. CEO McDonough stated he would need to put it on the plan. Steve F. asked if he wanted to move the existing? Mr. Parker said perhaps. Ms. Richards asked if they could utilize the existing second entrance? Maggie M. did not believe it was a legal access. CEO McDonough asked why it wasn’t legal? Maggie said they were only allowed one and they have one they are using. CEO McDonough stated that they have two existing entrances now, he thought it was grandfathered. Roger A. believed they were created when the buildings went in. CEO McDonough stated he would consider them grandfather due to the length of time they have been in existence.

Roger A. stated that currently the board needs a stormwater plan for a fifty-year storm, a revegetation schedule and to ensure they do not exceed the 10% lot coverage including the building overhangs.

Madge B. asked if paved driveways count toward the 10% lot coverage. Roger A. and CEO McDonough stated, no. She said, just the buildings. Roger said, yes.

Diane S. stated that they need to put the driveway on the plan if they are going to relocate it. Mr. Parker stated, yes, if we are going to relocate it. Diane said whatever they are going to use to access the new building should be on the plan.

Barbara F. asked if she needed to put off notify abutters and holding a public hearing until the additional information was ready for the board. Roger A. stated, correct.

Nothing further was discussed.



Madge B. brought in her initial draft of proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance in relation to regulating Marijuana Dispensary’s. She provided the board with a copy and it read as follows:

Draft 5/9/16 by Madge Baker

Registered Marijuana Dispensary zoning regulations for the Town of Shapleigh

1. Add to 105-15 a new definition for Registered Marijuana Dispensary (I have not researched the state definition yet)

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 10, 2016 Page 7 of 10

  1. Amend 105-17 to add Registered Marijuana Dispensary and associated growing facility as a prohibited use except in the GP district.
  2. Amend 105-18 to state that a Registered Marijuana Dispensary shall be located on an 80,000 sq. ft. lot with 200 feet of frontage on a public road.
  3. Add a new 105-61.6 Registered Marijuana Dispensary

a. Only one Dispensary shall be allowed in the Town.

b. A valid state license shall be submitted with the application for a CU permit.

c. The associated growing area for the Dispensary shall be treated as a principal use and shall be located on 2 acres with 2oo feet of frontage on a public road, whether the associated growing area is on the same lot as the Dispensary or is on a separate lot.

d. The CU permit shall be renewed annually by the Planning Board only if the owner presents a valid, current state license at the time of renewal and all zoning regulations are being complied with.

e. All applicable performance standards of the Shapleigh Zoning ordinance for a CU permit shall be met by the applicant.

f. A public hearing is required by the Shapleigh Zoning ordinance. Notice of the hearing shall be sent to the York County Sheriff’s Department, the Shapleigh Fire Department, and the Board of Selectmen in addition to the recipients designated in the Shapleigh Zoning ordinance. Attendees at the public hearing will not be permitted to ask detailed questions about the security system(s) or the interior layout of any building.

Madge B. began by stating it was her opinion to have one person draft something rather than sitting as a group. She offered to do this and she reminded the board that nothing would happen with this until next March (2017). She said she remained skeptical that the board needed to spend much time on this at the moment, but it at least gives the board a starting place, so as the board gets closer to next March the board could use this. She said that a lot could happen on the State level, so it may change the boards’ views.

Madge B. stated that towns seemed to be worried about getting more than one dispensary, so she put in only one per town. She said she had the sense that the concern is, if a town allowed them in they would become a center for the dispensing of marijuana. She did not share that view, that Shapleigh would become the State’s dispensary for marijuana.

Madge B. said they do need a valid State permit, as the State is the one that regulates this and since the State license has to be renewed every year the Town should also do so. She did not get in to how much the Town would charge. She said that could be figured out.

Madge B. said the Public Hearing issue is tricky because there is some concern about how much you want the public to know about what is going on in the building which could attract people who might try to break in. She said she suggested that the Planning Board would look at the location and site distances and that kind of thing but not permit comment at a public hearing as to what would be going on inside with respect to growing. She said the State regulates the growing and doesn’t allow it to be grown outside, so she didn’t feel the board needed to keep repeating what the State does not allow.

Ann H. believed you had to keep the growing part separate from the dispensary. Madge B. disagreed, she believed it could be at the same location. She said it is all regulated by the State and there has to be a growing facility connected to the dispensary and they can be on the same parcel or they can be on two different parcels. Ann wanted to know if the board would want them on the same? Madge didn’t see any problem with that, because the same people will run both, normally. Ann stated the growers had to be in a windowless growing facility. Madge stated, correct. Ann said they need a security system. Madge stated, correct. Ann said there were different rules for the dispensary. Madge said, correct. Ann said the dispensary needed a contract with the growers. Madge again said, correct. Ann wasn’t sure about putting the two together. Madge stated it was her understanding they can be put together, located on one parcel or on two separate parcels.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 10, 2016 Page 8 of 10

Madge B. said this was not the final draft but it was a starting point. She said she would be glad to make changes now if the board thought it was necessary.

Steve F. agreed the board shouldn’t spent a lot of time going over this now. He questioned if going down the road, it becomes legal in November, does that mean if people want to grow a greenhouse full of pot, will the board have any say over it? Diane S. said it depends on what the wording is on what is voted on. Madge agreed. Steve asked if marijuana becomes completely legal in November, would the board just be dealing with someone that wanted to dispense it to the public, not the greenhouse part? Roger A. thought the greenhouse was part of the business. Steve asked if he had a greenhouse full of marijuana for himself, would it be regulated? Diane S. and Maggie M. thought there would be a specific legal amount but it has not been written yet as to what that would be. Diane also did not believe it would be legal right away. Madge B. believed the State would regulate it and Shapleigh’s ordinance would have to reflect that. Roger said one condition with respect to the State is no Town can be more strict than the State. Madge said that would continue to be true, even if it becomes legal. She stated it would become like alcohol. Diane added that it would be taxed where it is sold.

Ann H. asked how the Town regulated bars. Roger A. stated the business was a Conditional Use Permit but the alcohol was regulated by the Selectmen. Madge B. said it was licensed by the State. She said at the moment it is all speculation and she said again, she didn’t feel the board needed to spend a lot of time on it.

Nothing further was discussed.


Comprehensive Plan

Madge B. believed they were up to the sections that the Planning Board had nothing to do with, so she asked what was next? Economic Development, Road and Transportation, Public Services, Historic Resources, Regional Coordination, and Capital Investments were all issues for the Board of Selectmen. The next section, called the Implementation Matrix, was the next step. Barbara F. stated in this section the board reviewed whether or not this was ongoing at this time, if it was something to do in the future, or if it was no longer something the board dealt with. Madge B. then questioned if this meant all the things previously discussed would go into these boxes in some form? Barbara wasn’t sure if it was what they reviewed or if there was additional information in this section.

Madge B. quickly reviewed the first page and much of that page would be ongoing from 2016 forward. She wasn’t sure if more information needed to be added. Some things were for the Selectmen. Rather than go on with this section, Madge suggested she and Barbara go over it and make changes and suggestions then review that with the board to make it easier and quicker to go thru. CEO McDonough asked about a workshop on the material. Madge did not think that was a bad idea but again suggested she begin the process, making it less time consuming.

It was agreed she would contact Barbara F. and set up a time to review the material and it will be brought back to the board at a meeting in the near future.

There was also a general discussion on what the board looks at with respect to the review of how growth impacts the town. CEO McDonough wanted to be certain there was actual data reviewed. Roger A. spoke of things such as impact to the schools, roads, infrastructure, etc. It was not just a number picked but how additional homes impact Shapleigh and what would be considered manageable growth.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 10, 2016 Page 9 of 10

Roger A. also stated the board has the ability to review the Comprehensive Plan in five years instead of ten, if there seems to be issues affecting the town that need further control.

Madge B. noted there may be a need in the future for a workshop with the Selectmen once the Planning Board has drafted their information.

Nothing further was discussed.



Madge Baker nominated Roger Allaire as Chairman of the Planning Board.

Diane Srebnick 2nd the motion.

Roger Allaire accepted the nomination.

All members were in favor. Roger Allaire will remain Chairman of the Planning Board.

Madge Baker nominated Maggie Moody as Vice Chairman of the Planning Board.

Diane Srebnick 2nd the motion.

Maggie Moody accepted the nomination.

All members were in favor. Maggie Moody will remain Vice Chairman of the Planning Board.

Madge Baker nominated Barbara Felong as Secretary.

Diane Srebnick 2nd the motion.

All members were in favor.

It was also noted that the Selectmen were also in charge of who filled this position and actually hired Barbara for the position.


Growth Permits

Map 7, Lot 1F (Goose Pond Road) – New Home

At the meeting held on April 26th, the board could not determine if the lot was a legal lot of record due to insufficient evidence, therefore, the board required the following:

1) The actual deed description for Lot 1F. The deed description received, dated February 4, 1963, appears to be for the parent lot, ‘1’ and not Lot ‘1F’.

2) Because there is no evidence Lot 1F is part of a legal subdivision, the board needs a statement from a Title Attorney that Lot 1F is a legal lot.

Mr. Berube provided a legal document from Attorney Jessie L. Krall, dated May 4, 2016, which stated that the subject lot did not appear to violate the subdivision provisions set forth in 30-A MRSA §4002. She also provided the proposed legal description, together with a copy of the Plan use to prepare the description.

Based on the information received the board approved the growth permit. Growth Permit #04-16 was assigned to Map7, Lot 1F.


Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – May 10, 2016 Page 10 of 10

June Planning Board Meetings

Due to elections being held on Tuesday, June 14th, the Planning Board will hold their meetings on Tuesday, June 7th and Tuesday, June 28th.


The Planning Board meeting ended at 8:30 p.m.

The next meeting will be held Tuesday, May 24, 2016 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.

Respectively submitted,

Barbara Felong

Land Use Secretary