July 07, 2015  8:04 PM 
June 24, 2015
Other Notices
June 24, 2015
May 14, 2015
March 04, 2015

SHAPLEIGH PLANNING BOARD

MINUTES

Wednesday, June 10, 2015

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

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

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.

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

Barbara F. began by stating she wanted to discuss the approval for Parker’s boathouse, the addition to the existing structure. She stated Jill Richardson contacted her with a concern about their conditions of approval. The condition which states ‘There shall be gutters placed on the front of the showroom, including the addition, and downspouts to the ground, to keep stormwater off any impervious surface’ Ms. Richardson believed was incorrect. Ms. Richardson and Mark Parker believed the gutter system only had to be place on the new addition, not the showroom as well. Barbara asked the board if they agreed and if they would like her to amend the conditions of approval? Board members agreed with Ms. Richardson stating the gutters were for the addition only. Roger A. stated it was in the front of the addition only.

Roland L. noted the applicant, Mark Parker, had asked if he could remove the gutters at some point and the board stated they could not remove them, other members agreed.

Roger A. said the reasons for the gutter was to keep water from running down the driveway, to keep it on site. He said where the downspout is to be place, the area is not going to be paved, it is ground and will remain so.

Barbara F. stated she would make the correction and mail it to the applicant stating the gutter is for the front of the addition only.

Nothing further was discussed.

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

Barbara F. began by stating she started doing the shoreland zoning changes and gave a copy to members. Preliminary changes were made to Chapters §105-4; 105-15; 105-38; 105-39; 105-49; 105-51; 105-51.1;

105-51.2; 105-51.3; 105-51.4.

Barbara F. stated everything written in Bold is new (a change or addition) and sections that are crossed out are changes required by the State.

Page 1 of 15

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 6/10/2015 Page 2 of 15

Barbara F. stated she began with the working copy from the State that had areas crossed out (removed) and then added the new text. Barbara stated that where there are places in the chapter that are referring to a specific location in the ordinance, she believed she referred back to the correct section but asked the members to review to see if she was correct. She noted there may be an area that has a blank after the word ‘section’ as she didn’t address it yet. She noted that several of the documents presented this evening were begun earlier in the day and she hadn’t had time to thoroughly review them, adding that she would like members to also be sure her typing was correct, i.e. look for spelling errors or typos.

Roger A. stated that after viewing the webinar by the State it appeared they were getting rid of addressing volume calculations for expansions. Barbara F. agreed. He believed it was now going to be strictly by size of the footprint. Diane S. stated it was footprint and height. CEO McDonough thought there would be a choice to use the new draft or keep what the town had. Barbara stated she didn’t present an either / or, she just took what the State presented and put that draft into section 105-4 ‘Nonconformance’.

Barbara F. told the board members if they felt they would like to address non-conforming structures differently, please let her know and she’ll make the necessary changes. She noted there was a change to the height of the structure allowed, based on the distance to the water, so the board may want to review that area carefully. CEO McDonough noted that the square footage allowed also changed with respect to distance to the water. Barbara agreed.

Barbara F. stated that on the last page of the section on definitions she presented the board with a list of definitions that the State had in their shoreland zoning ordinance that the Town of Shapleigh did not. She said she wasn’t suggesting the board add them but if the board thought it would make the ordinance easier to interpret they may want to add them, such as the definition of ‘disability’ or ‘disruption of shoreline integrity’. She also noted there were two definitions that were in Shapleigh’s ordinance but differed from the definitions the State used, ‘recreational vehicle’ and ‘replacement system’.

Barbara F. stated the two sections that the Town of Shapleigh currently does not have in their ordinance that the State is requiring, ‘Hazard Trees, Storm-Damaged Trees, and Dead Tree Removal’ and ‘Revegetation Requirements’ she believed would help the board while reviewing applications, as both give a more detailed description of what is required by the applicant with respect to submission requirements. It should make it easier for the applicant and for the board to be more specific in what they need for the review process. She believed the State created a more standardized requirement.

Barbara F. stated she was talking with CEO McDonough earlier in the day asking his opinion regarding giving the applicant a copy of the Zoning Ordinance or Subdivision Ordinance, along with the application. She stated with all the new changes and additions it would be difficult to put all these changes into an application, it would make it many pages longer. She thought perhaps the application fees could be raised by $20 to cover the costs of the ordinance and then the applicant would have detailed instructions on exactly what is required by the Town. She asked members what they thought?

Barbara F. noted that presently she does make copies of various sections of the ordinance for applicants and they often do not read it or say they didn’t receive it. She said if a copy of the ordinance went along with the application the board would at least be certain they had the requirements in writing, and therefore, should know what to present to the board.

Ann H. asked, what if you give the applicant the option of getting a copy of the ordinance, noting sometimes people come in for multiple permits. She said, that gives the applicant the option of paying the extra $20 for a copy of the ordinance. She said if they don’t want a copy then it’s their fault if they don’t have the additional information to help with their application.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 6/10/2015 Page 3 of 15

Roger A. stated very few people do multiple applications. He said a contractor might do multiple applications, if he were doing several best possible locations, but he didn’t see another reason for multiple applications. CEO McDonough asked what the cost of best possible location was? Barbara stated $125. Diane S. noted the other application is $150 (Conditional Use Permit). Barbara thought most of the shoreland zoning changes were for best possible location. Diane stated that the board could raise the cost of best possible location to $150 as well, and give the applicant a book. Roland L. asked if changing the fee required a special vote? Barbara stated it did and Roger would go to the meeting regarding fee schedules. The board thought it was a good idea to raise the cost of the application and give an ordinance book with it, as the applicant would then not have an excuse that they did not know what was required of them and it was up to them to read the ordinance. Diane hoped this would also cut down on plans that were inadequate.

Maggie M. added that if the information is given in the form of a book she thought it would be easier to find; it is less likely you lose the book over a piece of paper. Diane S. stated that they could refer back to it for other issues, she noted that she used the ordinance often with respect to shoreland zoning questions for her own personal use. She said it lets her know what she can and can’t do with her property.

CEO McDonough reminded members that they could find the information on line. Barbara F. agreed but noted she couldn’t get contractors to go on line to look up the information but they do come in and buy the book. She said she finds it easier to review the book for information than look it up on line in certain circumstances. She said the website is much easier to navigate now, than in the past, but she was still meeting with resistance and wanted there to be no excuse not to review the information. CEO McDonough noted that he preferred a book as well.

Barbara stated that this would not come in to play until next year, when the changes took place and were added to the ordinance but she wanted the board to consider the option. Ann H. asked about adding a page to the application to show them how to make a vegetation plan. Roger noted that they don’t use the description for what the board wants now. Diane S. agreed, the example given now didn’t seem to help, so adding another example probably would not either. Barbara stated she has given them examples of very good examples that the State had given out and they still don’t follow them very often.

Ann H. stated that if this is the case, perhaps the board should not accept the plan presented and tell them to redo it. CEO McDonough agreed. She said she hadn’t been on the board long but thought if a plan isn’t adequate, asking them to come back with an adequate plan would be what should be done. Diane S agreed, stating sometimes it appears they took only minutes to draft a document with a pencil, crayon or magic marker on notebook paper and hand it to the board, putting little to no effort into it. Ann thought it also seemed that it insulted the board as well. Diane agreed. Maggie M. added that the board often gets a half hour into the discussion before they see the document isn’t adequate, she believed the board should review it up front and state whether or not it was acceptable. CEO McDonough thought the board received the documents ahead of time now? Maggie said they did and it was nice to view before the meeting but she said often they do not receive the vegetation plan prior to the meeting.

Roger A. stated that by law if you designate you are missing a particular section, such as section 2, paragraph A, then that is the only thing they have to answer. If there is something else missing and the board notes it afterward, the applicant can state they do not have to do it, as the board didn’t ask for it, they only asked for section 2, paragraph A. He believed by law the board would not have any choice if they asked for specifically one thing, so he thought you need to keep requirements more open ended.

Ann H. asked if the board could ask them to bring in specific documents? Roger A. stated yes, but don’t be specific on what they need. Ann said if they need a vegetation plan, could you say something like, “After reviewing the application ‘so far’ you need a vegetation plan. Would that be leaving it open?”

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 6/10/2015 Page 4 of 15

Roger A. said when you go to classes you will find out the more you leave it open, the better off you are.

Roland L. asked, “Is this more or less restrictive than what we currently have?” Barbara F. asked if he was speaking of the new changes? Roland said, yes, and stated when he read it, it seemed like there were so many changes he couldn’t say. Barbara said she hadn’t reviewed it in detail yet, therefore she didn’t know. Roger A. thought in some areas it was more restrictive and in other areas more lenient. Roger also thought the State was trying to put timber harvesting back into the towns review process. Barbara didn’t think the town had to take it back? Roger said the State could ask for assistance down the road. Roger thought they might try to bring it back to the CEO.

Barbara F. stated she had not completed all the changes but has made progress.

Ann H. suggested the board add ‘bird’s eye view’ to the definition of footprint because people get confused with what the footprint actually is. Roger A. stated that when he reviewed the changes he thought the height changes were confusing, as they changed with distance to the water. Roland noted that square footage did as well. He believed it was consistent but wasn’t sure if it is more or less restrictive. Maggie M. thought it seemed the State was concerned with whatever you do near the lake, you don’t ruin everyone’s view behind you. Roland agreed.

Roland L., reviewing 105-4.D(b)(1) asked what the following meant, ….. ‘The maximum height of the principal structure may not be made greater than 15 feet or the height of the existing structure, whichever is greater’. He asked if it was 15 feet greater than the existing structure? Maggie M. said, “No, ‘or the height of the existing, whichever is greater.’” CEO McDonough agreed stating it was not 15 more feet added to the existing. Maggie said if the structure is 14 feet they can go to 15 but they can’t go to 16. Diane S. stated they get cut off at 35 feet now because that is what the ordinance states now. Roland asked if it was 15 feet from the lowest grade? CEO McDonough stated if the board uses the same definition of building height, then yes.

Roger A. stated the biggest change will be for recording the plans. Roger said under 105-4.D(d) it states, ‘An approved plan for expansion of a nonconforming structure must be recorded by the applicant with the registry of deeds, within 90 days of approval.’ Barbara F. stated that this is another reason the board needs to have a good plan, if it’s just a hand sketch it shouldn’t be recorded. Ann H. asked who checks on this. Barbara F. stated after they record it, they have to bring it back to the Planning Board showing that it has been recorded. Ann asked what happens if they don’t? Barbara said, then the plan is null and void. Ann asked if there would be a suspense file set up? CEO McDonough stated they would not get a permit from him until they record it. Barbara said most people act fast and return the documents back to her, for example with a division of land. She said the only time it doesn’t come back is if the person doesn’t want to follow thru with the land split. She said they are either in a hurry and do it right away or they go past the 90 days because they weren’t going to do it anyway.

Ann H. asked if this affects the mortgage? Diane S. said that wasn’t a planning board issue. CEO McDonough stated this was a recorded plan, not a change to the deed. Maggie M. added if the property transfers it doesn’t matter where the building is located or the vegetation plan. Roger A. agreed, he stated it was a method of tracking the 30% expansion. He said if someone has interest in the property, there now will be a way to see if the property has been expanded.

Roland L. asked what constitutes an approved plan? Is it the application and supporting documents? Roger A. stated it was an approved use. He said you bring in your plan and if it gets approved it’s an approved plan

and that is the documentation. Roland asked if it was the approval letter drafted as well? Diane S. stated the letter goes along with the approved plan. Barbara F. stated that was a good question as to what that criteria

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 6/10/2015 Page 5 of 15

was.

Roland L. stated the plans are going to have to be much better than what we accept now. Barbara F. agreed, she believed this is what the State is looking for, a more consistent and better set of plans to review and approve. She said for the sake of the board members it will help the review process. As long as the homeowner knows up front it’s part of the process, they will provide it. Diane S. thought it would be easier to enforce a plan as well. CEO McDonough agreed, stating they could review the plan on line at the registry.

Roland L. asked when this would take affect? Roger A. stated right after Town Meeting when it gets approved? Roland asked if this was 2016. Roger stated, yes. Roland asked if there would be public hearing before then? Barbara F. stated, “Absolutely, at least two.”

Maggie M. stated where it talks about the approved plan, if revegetation isn’t mentioned in that section, are they going to get by with just scribbling a plan on a napkin? Barbara F. stated you would go to the section on revegetation and that explains what is required. She noted that when reviewing an application the entire ordinance applies, not just one section. Maggie believed that was all the more reason for the applicant to have a copy of the ordinance.

Diane S. made a suggestion that one of the public hearings be held in August, so the people in Shapleigh just for the summer would be able to attend it. She said one of her neighbors was already concerned after hearing about the changes coming from the Square Pond Newsletter. Barbara F. stated that would be fine as long as the changes were ready. Roger A. stated the hardest part about that is they can hear it but they can’t vote on it or do anything about it because it is mandated by the State. Diane agreed but said her neighbor’s attitude was more along the lines of just wanting to be informed. Roger said it was great to have people that are interested.

Barbara F. noted that the copy of the section call ‘Soils’ was provided, not because there was a change to the section but because there was a change to where it is being placed in the ordinance due to the additions. That section of the ordinance remains the same.

Barbara F. asked if there are any questions, please write them down, because it would be easier for her to bring them to the DEP. Barbara stated these are change we have to make unless our ordinance is more strict. She thought some of the changes are great, as they require better plans to be presented.

CEO McDonough stated with respect to the changes, he will be reviewing them to note his concerns. He stated he already had a few concerns with the section on hazard trees. Barbara F. asked that he jot down any changes he thought would work and have them for a future review. Roland L. asked if in the area that it states ‘stumps may not be removed’, does grinding constitute removal? CEO McDonough stated, no. He said, “They could grind it and grade it?” CEO McDonough stated, “Yes.”

Barbara F. noted that in the section for hazard trees the State wanted a tree at least 4 feet in height to replace a tree but she put 6 feet in height, as that is what the town asks for now. Maggie M. asked about the part that states 80% success after 5 years, did we have that before? CEO McDonough asked who was going to police that? Barbara thought it was odd. Diane S. stated CEO McDonough may need a tree assistant? She thought with all the new requirements, he may need an assistant.

Barbara F. stated she would continue to work on the changes. She reminded the board the DEP is open to suggestions, as long as the changes are as strict as what they have presented. Also, any changes or additions to the town ordinance have to be approved by the DEP, hopefully before town meeting, so no future changes will have to be made.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 6/10/2015 Page 6 of 15

The following are the preliminary changes in black or crossed out:

§ 105-4. Nonconformance.

D. Nonconforming structures.

(1) Expansions. All new principal and accessory structures, excluding functionally water-dependent uses, must meet the water body, tributary stream, or wetland setback requirements contained in Section 105-18. A nonconforming structure may be added to or expanded after obtaining a permit from the same permitting authority as that for a new structure, If such addition or expansion does not increase the nonconformity of the structure. if such addition or expansion does not increase the non-conformity of the structure and is in accordance with subparagraphs (a) and (b) below.

(a) Expansion of any portion of a structure within 25 feet of the normal high-water line of a water body, tributary stream, or upland edge of a wetland is prohibited, even if the expansion will not increase nonconformity with the water body, tributary stream, or wetland setback requirement. Expansion of an accessory structure that is located closer to the normal high-water line of a water body, tributary stream, or upland edge of a wetland than the principal structure is prohibited, even if the expansion will not increase nonconformity with the water body, tributary stream, or wetland setback requirement.

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), above, if a legally existing nonconforming principal structure is entirely located less than 25 feet from the normal high-water line of a water body, tributary stream, or upland edge of a wetland, that structure may be expanded as follows, as long as all other applicable municipal land use standards are met and the expansion is not prohibited in Section D(1).

(1) The maximum total footprint for the principal structure may not be expanded to a size greater than 800 square feet or 30% larger than the footprint that existed on January 1, 1989, whichever is greater. The maximum height of the principal structure may not be made greater than 15 feet or the height of the existing structure, whichever is greater.

(c) All other legally existing nonconforming principal and accessory structures that do not meet the water body, tributary stream, or wetland setback requirements may be expanded or altered as follows, as long as other applicable municipal land use standards are met and the expansion is not prohibited by Section D(1) or Section D(1)(a), above.

(1) For structures located less than 75 feet from the normal high-water line of a water body, tributary stream, or upland edge of a wetland, the maximum combined total footprint for all structures may not be expanded to a size greater than 1,000 square feet or 30% larger than the footprint that existed on January 1, 1989, whichever is greater. The maximum height of any structure may not be made greater than 20 feet or the height of the existing structure, whichever is greater.

(2) For structures located less than 100 feet from the normal high-water line of a great pond classified as GPA or a river flowing to a great pond classified as GPA, the maximum combined total footprint for all structures may not be expanded to a size greater than 1,500 square feet or 30% larger than the footprint that existed on January 1, 1989, whichever is greater. The maximum height of any structure may not be made greater than 25 feet or the height of the existing structure, whichever is greater. Any portion of those structures located less than 75 feet from the normal high-water line of a water body, tributary stream, or upland edge of a wetland must meet the footprint and height limits in Section D(1)(b)(1) or Section D(1)(b)(2), above.

(3) In addition to the limitations in subparagraphs (1) and (2), for structures that are legally nonconforming due to their location within the Resource Protection District when located at less than 250 feet from the normal high-water line of a water body or the upland edge of a wetland, the maximum combined total footprint for all structures may not be expanded to a size greater than 1,500 square feet or 30% larger than the footprint that existed at the time the Resource Protection District was established on the lot, whichever is greater. The maximum height of any structure may not be made greater than 25 feet or the height of the existing structure, whichever is greater, except that any portion of those structures located less than 75 feet from the normal

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 6/10/2015 Page 7 of 15

high-water line of a water body, tributary stream, or upland edge of a wetland must meet the footprint and height limits in Section D(1)(b)(1) or Section D(1)(b)(2), above.

(d) An approved plan for expansion of a nonconforming structure must be recorded by the applicant with the registry of deeds, within 90 days of approval. The recorded plan must show the existing and proposed footprint of the non-conforming structure, the existing and proposed structure height, the footprint of any other structures on the parcel, the shoreland zone boundary and evidence of approval by the municipal review authority.

(e) If proposed addition or expansion of a nonconforming structure cannot meet the dimensional requirements of this chapter, a variance shall be applied for in accordance with the procedures set forth in this chapter. If any portion of a structure is less than the required setback from the normal high-water line of a water body, or tributary stream, or the upland edge of a wetland, that portion of a structure shall not be expanded as measured in floor area or volume by 30% or more during the lifetime of the structure. If replacement structure conforms with the requirements of Section 105-4.D(5) and is less than the required setback from a water body, tributary stream or wetland, the replacement structure may not be expanded if the original structure existing on January 1, 1989 had been expanded by 30% in floor area and volume since that date.

(2) Patios, steps, decks. The addition of an open patio with no structures elevated above the ground level shall constitute the expansion of a nonconforming structure. The addition of steps shall not constitute the expansion of a nonconforming structure. But the addition of a deck does constitute the expansion of a nonconforming structure and must be in compliance with Subsection D(1).

(3) Foundations.

(a) Whenever a new, enlarged, or replacement foundation is constructed under a non-conforming 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.

(b) If the completed foundation does not extend beyond the exterior dimensions of the structure; except for expansion in conformity with Subsection D(1) above, and the foundation does not cause the structure to be elevated by more than three

additional feet, as measured from the uphill side of the structure (from original ground level to the bottom of the first floor sill), it shall not be considered to be an expansion of the structure.

(4) Resumption. Discontinuance of the use of a legally existing nonconforming structure shall not constitute abandonment of the structure. Conforming use of the structure may be resumed at any time.

(5) Removal, reconstruction or replacement.

(a) Any nonconforming structure which is located less than the required setback from a water body, tributary stream, or wetland and which is removed or damaged or destroyed regardless of the cause, by more than 50% of its Town-assessed value before such damage, destruction or removal, may be reconstructed or replaced, provided that a permit is obtained within one year of the date of said damage, destruction or removal and provided that such reconstruction or replacement must be in compliance with all water body, tributary stream or wetland setback requirements to the greatest practical extent as determined by the Planning Board in accordance with the purposes of this chapter. In no case shall the structure be reconstructed or replaced so as to increase its nonconformity. If the reconstructed or replacement structure is less than the required setback is shall not be any larger than the original structure, except as allowed pursuant to Subsection D(1) above, as determined by the non-conforming floor area and volume footprint of the reconstructed

or replaced structure at its new location. If the total amount of floor area and volume of the original structure can be relocated or reconstructed beyond the required setback area, no portion of the relocated or reconstructed structure shall be replaced or constructed at less than the setback requirement for a new structure. When it is necessary to remove vegetation in order to replace or reconstruct a structure, vegetation shall be replaced in accordance with Section (D)(7)(b) below.

(b) Any nonconforming structure which is located less than the required setback from a water body, tributary stream, or wetland and which is removed by 50% or less of the Town-assessed value, or which is decaying, damaged or destroyed by 50% or less of the Town-assessed value of the structure, excluding normal

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 6/10/2015 Page 8 of 15

maintenance and repair, may be reconstructed in place if a permit is obtained from the Code Enforcement Officer within one year of such decay, damage or destruction or removal.

(c) In determining whether the building reconstruction or replacement meets the setback to the greatest practical extent, the Planning Board shall consider, in addition to the criteria in Subsection D(7) below, the physical condition and type of foundation present, if any.

(6) Parking or loading space. A building or structure which is nonconforming as to the requirements for off-street parking space shall not be enlarged or altered to create additional dwelling units, or seats, as in the case of commercial, industrial, business

or institutional or recreational buildings, or accommodations, unless off-street parking is provided for such addition, enlargement or alteration of the original buildings or structure, sufficient to satisfy the requirements of this chapter. A building which is nonconforming as to the requirements for off-street loading space shall not be enlarged or added to unless off-street spaces are provided sufficient to satisfy the requirements of this chapter for both the addition or enlargement and the original building or structure.

(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.

(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 accordance with Section D(7). 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, 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.

[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.

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

For the change to §105-15 Definitions – a copy can be obtained from the Land Use Secretary.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 6/10/2015 Page 9 of 15

§ 105-38. Individual private campsites not associated with campgrounds.

Individual private campsites not associated with campgrounds are allowed provided that the following conditions are met:

A. One campsite per lot existing on the effective date of this chapter, or 30,000 square feet of lot area within the shoreland zone, whichever is less, may be permitted.

B. When an individual private campsite is proposed on a lot that contains another principal use and/or structure, the lot must contain the minimum lot dimensional requirements for the principal structure and/or use, and the individual private campsite separately.

---------

§ 105-39. Earth removal and filling for activities other than mineral exploration and extraction.

D. Earthmoving in Shoreland District. Any filling, dredging or excavation of land above or below the normal high watermark, except earthmoving of less than 10 cubic yards which shall require a permit from the CEO (except as provided above) to ensure proper erosion and sedimentation, shall require a conditional use permit from the Planning Board.

(1) When an excavation contractor will perform an activity that requires or results in more than one (1) cubic yard of soil disturbance, the person responsible for management of erosion and sedimentation control practices at the site must be certified in erosion control practices by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. This person must be present at the site each day earthmoving activity occurs for a duration that is sufficient to ensure that proper erosion and sedimentation control practices are followed. This is required until erosion and sedimentation control measure have been installed, which will either stay in place permanently or stay in place until the area is sufficiently covered with vegetation necessary to prevent soil erosion. The name and certification number of the person who will oversee the activity causing or resulting in soil disturbance shall be included on the permit application. This requirement does not apply to a person or firm engaged in agriculture or timber harvesting if best management practices or erosion and sedimentation control are used; and municipal, state and federal employees engaged in project associated with that employment.

----------

§ 105-49. Agriculture.

A. All spreading of manure shall be accomplished in conformance with the Manure Utilization Guidelines published by the former Maine Department of Agriculture on November 1, 2001, and the Nutrient Management Law (7 M.R.S.A. sections 4201-4209).

B. Manure shall not be stored or stockpiled within one hundred (100) feet, horizontal distance, of a great pond classified GPA or a river flowing to a great pond classified GPA, or within seventy-five (75) feet horizontal

distance, of other water bodies, tributary streams, or wetlands. All manure storage areas within the Shoreland zone must be constructed or modified such that the facility produces no discharge of effluent or contaminated storm water.

C. Where soil is tilled, an untilled filter strip of natural vegetation shall be retained between the filled ground and the normal high-water elevation of the surface water areas protected by these districts. The average width of this strip shall vary according to the average slope of the land as follows:

Average Slope of Land Between Tilled Width of Strip Between Tilled Land and

Land and Normal High-Water Normal High-Water Elevation

Elevation Percent (Feet Along Surface of the Ground)

0 to 4 50

5 to 9 70

10 to 14 90

15 and over 110

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 6/10/2015 Page 10 of 15

D. Agricultural activities involving tillage of soil greater than forty thousand (40,000) square feet in surface area, within the shoreland zone shall require a Conservation Plan to be filed with the Planning Board. Non-conformance with the provisions of said plan shall be considered to be a violation of this chapter. NOTE: Assistance in preparing a Conservation Plan may be available through the local Soil and Water Conservation District office.

E. Agricultural practices shall be conducted to minimize soil erosion, sedimentation, contamination and nutrient enrichments of ground- and surface waters.

F. Agricultural practices not in conformance with these standards may be allowed by conditional use permit.

G. There shall be no new tilling of soil within 100 feet, horizontal distance, of the normal high-water line of a great pond classified GPA; within 75 feet, horizontal distance, from other water bodies; nor within 25 feet, horizontal distance, of tributary streams and freshwater wetlands. Operations in existence on the effective date of this chapter and not in conformance with this provision may be maintained.

H. Newly established livestock grazing areas shall not be permitted within 100 feet, horizontal distance, of the normal high-water line of a great pond classified GPA; within 75 feet, horizontal distance, of other water bodies, nor within 25 feet, horizontal distance, of tributary streams and freshwater wetlands. Livestock grazing associated with ongoing farm activities and which is not in conformance with the above setback provisions may continue, provided that such grazing is conducted in accordance with a Conservation Plan that has been filed with the planning board.

--------

§ 105-51.1. Hazard Trees, Storm-Damaged Trees, and Dead Tree Removal

A. Hazard trees in the Shoreland zone may be removed without a permit after consultation with the Code Enforcement Officer if the following requirements are met:

(1) Within the shoreline buffer, if the removal of a hazard tree results in a cleared opening in the tree canopy greater than two hundred and fifty (250) square feet, replacement with native tree species is required, unless there is new tree growth already present. New tree growth must be as near as practicable to where the hazard tree was removed and be at least two (2) inches in diameter, measured at four and one half (4.5) feet above the ground level. If new growth is not present, then replacement trees shall consist of native species and be at least six (6) feet in height above ground level and no less than (2) inches in diameter. Stumps may not be removed.

(2) Outside of the shoreline buffer, when the removal of hazard trees exceeds forty (40) percent of the volume of trees four (4) inches or more in diameter, measured at four and one (4.5) feet above ground level in any ten (10) year period, and/or results in cleared openings exceeding twenty-five (25) percent of the lot area within the shoreland zone, or ten thousand (10,000) square feet,

(3) whichever is greater, replacement with native trees species is required, unless there is new tree growth already present. New tree growth must be as near as practicable to where the hazard tree was removed and be at least two (2) inches in diameter, measured at four and one half (4.5) feet above ground level. If new growth is not present, then replacement trees shall consist of native species and be at least six (6) feet in height above ground level and no less than (2) inches in diameter.

(4) The removal of standing dead trees, resulting from natural causes, is permissible without the need for replanting or a permit, as long as the removal does not result in the creation of new lawn areas, or other permanently cleared areas, and stumps are not removed. For the purposes of this provision dead trees are those trees that contain no foliage during the growing season.

(5) The Code Enforcement Officer may require the property owner to submit an evaluation from a licensed forester or arborist before any hazard tree can be removed within the Shoreland zone.

(6) The Code Enforcement Officer may require more than a one-for-one replacement for hazard trees removed that exceed eight (8) inches in diameter measured at four and one half (4.5) feet above the ground level.

B. Storm-damaged trees in the Shoreland zone may be removed without a permit after consultation with the Code Enforcement Officer if the following requirements are met:

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 6/10/2015 Page 11 of 15

(a) Within the shoreline buffer, when the removal of storm-damaged trees results in a cleared opening in the tree canopy greater than two hundred and fifty (250) square feet, replanting is not required, but the area shall be required to naturally revegetate, and the following requirements must be met:

(1) The area from which a storm-damaged tree is removed does not result in new lawn areas, or other permanently cleared areas;

(2) Stumps from the storm-damaged trees may not be removed;

(3) Limbs damaged from a storm event may be pruned even if they extend beyond the bottom one-third (1/3) of the tree; and

(4) If after one growing season, no natural regeneration or regrowth is present, replanting of native tree seedlings or saplings is required at a density of one seedling per every eight (80) square feet of lost canopy.

(b) Outside of the shoreline buffer, if the removal of storm damaged trees exceeds 40% of the volume of trees four (4) inches or more in diameter, measured at four and one half (4.5) feet above the ground level in any ten (10) year period, or results, in the aggregate, in cleared openings exceeding 25% of the lot area within the Shoreland zone or ten thousand (10,000) square feet, whichever is greater, and no natural regeneration occurs within one growing season, then native tree seedlings or saplings shall be replanted on a one-for-one basis.

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

§ 105-51. Clearing or Removal of Vegetation for Activities Other than Timber Harvesting.

A. In a Resource Protection District abutting a great pond, there shall be no cutting of vegetation within the strip of land extending 75 feet, horizontal distance, inland from the normal high-water line, except to remove safety hazards. hazard trees as described in Section 105-51.1. Elsewhere, in any Resource Protection District the cutting or removal of vegetation shall be limited to that which is necessary for uses expressly authorized in that district.

B. Buffer strips of vegetation.

(1) Except in areas as described in Subsection A, above, and except to allow for the development of permitted uses, within a strip of land extending 100 feet, horizontal distance, inland from the normal high-water line of a great pond classified GPA, or a river flowing to a great pond classified GPA, and or within a strip extending 75 feet, horizontal distance, from any other water body, tributary stream or the upland edge of a wetland, a buffer strip of vegetation shall be preserved as follows:

(a) There shall be no cleared opening greater than 250 square feet in the forest canopy (or other existing woody vegetation if a forested canopy is not present) as measured from the outer limits of the tree or shrub crown. However, a single footpath not to exceed six (6) feet in width as measured between tree trunks and/or shrub stems is allowed for accessing the shoreline provided that a cleared line of sight to the water through the buffer strip is not created.

(b) Selective cutting of trees within the buffer strip is allowed provided that a well-distributed stand of trees and other natural vegetation is maintained. For the purposes of this section, a “well-distributed stand of trees” adjacent to a great pond classified GPA, or a river or stream flowing to a great pond classified GPA, shall be defined as maintaining a rating score of 12 or more in any twenty-five-foot-by-twenty-five-foot square (625 square feet) area as determined by the following rating system:

Diameter of Tree at 4 1/2 Feet

Above Ground Level

(inches) Points

2 to 4 1

greater than 4 to 12 2

greater than to 12 4

[1] Adjacent to other water bodies, tributary streams and wetlands, a “well-distributed stand of trees” is defined as maintaining a minimum rating score of eight per twenty-five-foot-by-twenty-five-foot square area.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 6/10/2015 Page 12 of 15

[2] The following shall govern in applying this point system:

(i) Any plot not containing the required points must have no vegetation removed except as otherwise allowed by this chapter;

(ii) Any plot containing the required points may have vegetation removed down to the minimum points required or as otherwise allowed by this chapter;

(iii) Where conditions permit, no more than 50% of the points on any twenty-five-foot by twenty-five-foot square area may consist of trees greater than 12 inches in diameter.

[3] For the purposes of Section 105-51(B)(1)(b) “other natural vegetation” is defined as retaining existing vegetation under three feet in height and

other ground cover and retaining at least three (3) saplings less than two (2) inches in diameter at 4 1 /2 feet above ground level for each twenty-five-foot by twenty-five-foot square area. If three saplings do

not exist, no woody stems less than two (2) inches in diameter can be removed until three (3) saplings have been recruited into the plot.

[4] Notwithstanding the above provisions, no more than 40% of the total volume of trees four (4) inches or more in diameter, measured at 4 1/2 feet above ground level may be removed in any ten (10) year period.

(c) In order to protect water quality and wildlife habitat, existing vegetation under three feet in height and other ground cover, including leaf litter and the forest duff layer, shall not be cut, covered, or removed, except to provide for a footpath or other permitted uses as described in Subsections B(1) and B(1)(a) above.

(d) Pruning of tree branches on the bottom 1/3 of the tree is allowed.

(e) In order to maintain a buffer strip of vegetation, when the removal of storm-damaged, diseased, unsafe or dead or hazard trees results in the creation of cleared openings, these openings shall be replanted with native tree species in accordance with Subsection B(1), below, unless existing new tree growth is present.

(f) When trees are required to be replanted for the purpose of maintaining a point system they must be a minimum of six feet in height, measured from the base of the trunk to the top of the tree.

(g) In order to maintain the vegetation in the shoreline buffer, clearing or removal of vegetation for allowed activities, including associated construction and related equipment operation, within or outside the shoreline buffer, must comply with the requirements of Subsection B(1).

(2) The provisions contained in Subsection B(1) above shall not apply to those portions of public recreational facilities adjacent to public swimming areas as long as cleared areas are limited to the minimum area necessary.

----------

§105-51.2. Exemptions to Clearing and Vegetation Removal Requirements

A. The following activities are exempt from the clearing and vegetation removal standards set forth in Section 105-51, provided that all other applicable requirements of this chapter are complied with, and the removal of vegetation is limited to that which is necessary:

(1) The removal of vegetation that occurs at least once every two (2) years for the maintenance of legally existing areas that do not comply with the vegetation standards in this chapter, such as but not limited to cleared openings in the canopy or fields. Such areas shall not be enlarged, except as allowed by this section. If any of these areas, due to lack of removal of vegetation every two (2) years, reverts back to primarily woody vegetation, the requirements of Section 105-51 apply;

(2) The removal of vegetation from the location of allowed structures or allowed uses, when the shoreline setback requirements of Section 105-18 are not applicable;

(3) The removal of vegetation from the location of public swimming areas associated with an allowed public recreational facility;

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 6/10/2015 Page 13 of 15

(4) The removal of vegetation associated with allowed agricultural uses, provided best management practices are utilized, and provided all requirements of Section 105-49 are complied with;

(5) The removal of vegetation associated with brownfields or voluntary response action program (VRAP) projects provided that the removal of vegetation is necessary for remediation activities to clean-up contamination on a site in a general development district, commercial fisheries and maritime activities district or other equivalent zoning district approved by the Commissioner that is part of a state or federal brownfields program or a voluntary response action program pursuant 38 M.R.S.A. section 343-E, and that is located along:

(a) A coastal wetland; or

(b) A river that does not flow to a great pond classified as GPA pursuant to 38 M.R.S.A. section 465-A.

(6) The removal of non-native invasive vegetation species, provided the following minimum requirements are met:

(a) If removal of vegetation occurs via wheeled or tracked motorized equipment, the wheeled or tracked motorized equipment is operated and stored at least twenty-five (25) feet, horizontal distance, from the shoreline, except that wheeled or tracked equipment may be operated or stored on existing structural surfaces, such as pavement or gravel;

(b) Removal of vegetation within twenty-five (25) feet, horizontal distance, from the shoreline occurs via hand tools; and

(c) If applicable clearing and vegetation removal standards are exceeded due to the removal of non-native invasive species vegetation, the area shall be revegetated with native species to achieve compliance.

(7) The removal of vegetation associated with emergency response activities conducted by the Department, The U.S. Environmental Agency, the U.S. Coast Guard, and their agents.

---------

§ 105-51.3. Revegetation Requirements.

A. 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.

(1) 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 remove, where existing vegetation is to remain, and where vegetation is to be planted, including a list of all vegetation to be planted.

(2) 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:

(3) 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.

(4) Revegetation activities must meet the following requirements for trees and saplings:

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

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 6/10/2015 Page 14 of 15

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

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

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

(e) 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

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

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

(a) 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;

(b) 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;

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

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

(e) 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.

(6) Revegetation activities must meet the following requirements for ground vegetation and ground cover:

(a) 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;

(b) 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

(c) 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.

Nothing further was discussed.

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

OTHER:

Growth Permits:

Map 21, Lot 36 (77 24th Street) – Seasonal Conversion – GP #7-15

This is an approved Best Possible Location.

Map 5, Lot 20-9 (White Tail Lane) – New Home – GP #8-15

This is in an approved subdivision.

Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes – 6/10/2015 Page 15 of 15

Map 23, Lot 18 (25 Director’s Lane) – Seasonal Conversion – GP #9-15

This is an approved Best Possible Location.

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

The Planning Board meeting ended at 8:25 p.m.

The next meeting will be held Tuesday, June 23rd at 7:30 p.m.

Respectfully,

Barbara Felong

Land Use Secretary

planningboard@shapleigh.net