| January 17, 2020 | ||||
Shapleigh
Planning Board Minutes Tuesday,
December 10, 2019
Members
in attendance: Roger Allaire (Chairman), Steve Foglio (Vice Chairman), Madge
Baker and Maggie Moody. Roland Legere
and Alternate Ann Harris were unable to attend. Code Enforcement Officer Mike
Demers was also in attendance. ************************ Minutes
are not verbatim, unless in quotes “” – If the name of a citizen making a
comment was not requested by the Planning Board Chairman, the reference to
their name will be known as ‘Citizen’ or ‘Abutter’ depending on whom is
speaking. ************************
Public Hearing began at
6:00 p.m.
Several
homeowners attended the meeting: William ‘Bill’ Mageary, William ‘Bill’
Porreca, Diane Bragdon and John Reeves.
Roger
A. opened the public hearing by stating that the Planning Board was introducing
several new sections to the ordinance, both of which are taken from the DEP
Chapter 1000 ‘Guidelines for Municipal Shoreland Zoning Ordinance’. He stated that both are therefore allowed by
the DEP but to date the Town of Shapleigh had not adopted them.
The
first proposed addition to the ordinance Roger read as follows:
§105-4.
Nonconformance
D. Nonconforming structures.
(9) Low Retaining Walls in the Shoreland
District less than 24 inches in height.
Retaining
walls that are not necessary for erosion control shall meet the structure
setback requirement, except for low retaining walls and associated fill
provided all of the following conditions are met: (a) The site has been previously altered
and an effective vegetated buffer does not exist; (b) The wall(s) is(are) at least 25 feet
horizontal distance, from the normal high-water line of a water body, tributary
stream, or upland edge of a wetland; (c) The site where the retaining wall
will be constructed is legally existing lawn or is a site eroding from lack of
naturally occurring vegetation, and which cannot be stabilized with vegetative
plantings; (d) The total height of wall(s), in the
aggregate, are no more than 24 inches; (e) Retaining walls are located outside
of the 100-year floodplain on rivers, streams, coastal wetlands, and tributary
streams, as designated on the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA)
Flood Insurance Rate Maps or Flood Hazard Boundary Maps, or the flood of
record, or in the absence of these, by soil types identified as recent flood
plain soils. Page 1 of 10 Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes –
December 10, 2019 2
of 10
(f) The area behind the wall is
revegetated with grass, shrubs, trees, or a combination thereof, and no further
structural development will occur within the setback area, including patios and
decks; and (g) A vegetated buffer area is
established within 25 feet, horizontal distance, of the normal high-water line
of a water body, tributary stream, or upland edge of a wetland when a natural
buffer area does not exist. The buffer area must meet the following
characteristics: (1) The buffer must include shrubs and
other woody and herbaceous vegetation. Where natural ground cover is lacking
the area must be supplemented with leaf or bark mulch; (2) Vegetation plantings must be in
quantities sufficient to retard erosion and provide for effective infiltration
of stormwater runoff; (3) Only native species may be used to
establish the buffer area; (4) A minimum buffer width of 15 feet,
horizontal distance, is required, measured perpendicularly to the normal
high-water line or upland edge of a wetland; (5) A
footpath not to exceed the standards in Section 105-51.B(1)(a) may traverse the
buffer. (h) All approved plans may require
confirmation in writing by a licensed surveyor that the placement of the
structure is correct per the specifications approved by the Planning Board.
Roger
A. stated that the Planning Board added item (h) to the DEP guidelines because
this is a new structure in the Shoreland District on lots where property lines
can be questionable, this way the Planning Board has the ability to ask for a
survey if it appears necessary.
Roger
A. asked if there were any questions. Bill Porreca asked where the height of 24 inches came from? He didn’t feel this would be enough height in
certain areas with very steep slopes with an erosion problem. Steve F. stated
that the board was looking at a tool the DEP currently allows to help mitigate
erosion issues. He agreed it would not
help in all areas, but in areas where there are sandy soils, where there is no
vegetation it would help to slow down the water, and it is something that the
town currently does not have.
Bill
Mageary asked if he understood correctly that the new wall had to be 25 feet back
from the high water line? The board
stated that was correct. Mr. Mageary
asked how far from the first wall a second wall could be placed? Roger A. stated that the new ordinance did
not dictate that, nor did the DEP. Mr.
Mageary thought this was a great step. He stated that he went to the DEP, as he has a greater than a 30 degree
slope and he wanted to know what he or they could do; they asked him what lake
he was on and he said Mousam. He said
the DEP told him they were not doing anything on Mousam, and that he could use
mulch only. He said that he was happy when he saw this option.
Steve
F. stated that this ordinance will not let anyone put in a new wall at the
water’s edge. Bill Mageary asked if the
DEP would be involved. Roger A. stated
that you would have to get a Permit by Rule from the DEP and there would be a
14 day window. He stated that the DEP
would contact the CEO if there were any issues. Roger said if the town adopts the ordinance the DEP would still need to
bless the project
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes –
December 10, 2019 3
of 10
as
presented. Roger stated that he felt
this would at least help some of the erosion that is taking place now, where
vegetation will not work.
Mr.
Reeves wanted to know if you put in a wall in an area where there is no
existing vegetation, and due to the sandy soil no vegetation will grow, is
there an alternative to having to plant vegetaion? Roger A. stated that you could use mulch for
stabilization of that area. Ms. Bragdon
asked if you could use pine needles if that was what was currently there? The board had no issue with that.
Bill
Porreca and Bill Mageary both wanted to know why this was only allowed on lots
that were previously altered? Steve F.
stated that if you currently don’t have a buffer of plants, trees, or other
vegetation and you are unable to stop the erosion, this allows for an
alternative. He said that what the board
and likely the DEP does not want, are walls going in just for aesthetic
reasons, so this ordinance is put in place for areas where there are no trees
to slow the water down. Mr. Mageary
agreed this would help to slow the water down but on a 30 degree slope it may
not be enough, he said he was still happy to have the ability to utilize
this. CEO Demers stated that based on
Mr. Mageary’s lot, he wasn’t sure in his situation it would work to his
satisfaction. CEO Demers stated that Mr.
Mageary’s lot is natural, this ordinance is looking at places that have been
cleared in the past. Again the question was asked why this was put into the
ordinance, that being the words ‘the site has been previously altered’? CEO Demers stated that it is tough to address
all situations, but this would be a tool to help some situations around the
lakes. He said again that in Mr.
Mageary’s case he didn’t think this would fit his lot. Maggie M. was not sure about that. She pointed out that when you read further in
the ordinance it states that a wall can be constructed where there is a legally
existing lawn ‘or’ is a site eroding from lack of naturally occurring
vegetation, and which cannot be stabilized with vegetative plantings. She felt the ordinance was trying to help
with areas that cannot be stabilized and it appeared there was an either/or
alternative. The board did not disagree
with her assessment.
Roger
A. asked if there were any additional questions? There were none. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The
second proposed addition to the ordinance read as follows:
Place
Under §105-4.D ‘Nonconforming structures’, placed after Section D.(2)
New
Accessory Structure in the Shoreland District
On
a non-conforming lot of record on which only a residential structure exists,
and it is not possible to place an accessory structure meeting the required
water body, tributary stream or wetland setbacks, the code enforcement officer
may issue a permit to place a single accessory structure, with no utilities,
for the storage of yard tools and similar equipment. Such accessory structure
shall not exceed eighty (80) square feet in area nor eight (8) feet in height,
and shall be located as far from the shoreline or tributary stream as practical
and shall meet all other applicable standards, including lot coverage and
vegetation clearing limitations. Additionally the following apply:
1) In
no case shall the structure be located closer to the shoreline or tributary
stream than the principal structure. Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes –
December 10, 2019 4
of 10
2) At
no time shall the structure be expanded. 3) The
structure shall not be used for habitation.
Roger
A. stated that this would allow people who did not have an accessory structure
to have a shed for tools, ski’s and yard tools, etc.
Roger
A. asked if there were any questions?
Ms.
Bragdon was concerned that there wasn’t anything in this ordinance that
specified what type of shed could be put up. She stated that she didn’t want to have something that was unattractive,
such as having no siding or built from junk. She wanted to know if there was anything written in the ordinance to
address this? Roger A. stated that there
was no language written that addresses the appearance of the structure, only
the size. Ms. Bragdon asked about
maintaining the structure, is there anything stating it will not get run
down? She noted there were sheds now
around the lakes that were falling apart and she didn’t want to see more of
that. Roger said that this ordinance
only allows someone to put a shed on their property, it doesn’t address the
appearance of it. Roger stated that even
existing structures in Shapleigh, some that perhaps should be condemned, are not
addressed with respect to appearance. Roger added that the DEP will allow the new structure based on the size
and the criteria that they have written. The board is using their criteria to allow the structure, which
currently is not allowed.
Ms.
Bragdon stated that she understood the need. CEO Demers stated that the new structure will be built to the building
code.
CEO
Demers wanted to know if the existing camp is 50 feet to the water and 50 feet
to the road setback, does the new structure go next to the camp or can it go
next to the road. He also asked if there
was only 10 feet side setback existing, which would not allow for much room for
a shed, could the shed go closer to the road? Roger A. stated that the new ordinance doesn’t state it can’t go between
the house and the road. He stated that
the ordinance states that there is the ability to allow for an accessory
structure. Barbara F. stated that she
could ask the DEP if they had an opinion with respect to this.
CEO
Demers thought perhaps an exemption to the road setback should be added for the
shed, such that if the shed could not be put to the side of the existing
structure, it did not have to honor the road setback. Roger believed that how the ordinance is
written now, it could go closer to the road. He felt that this was giving a waiver to the side and rear setbacks to
allow for a new structure. The board
thought that perhaps something needed to be added to the 105-17 ‘Land use’
table.
Ms.
Bragdon asked what the side setbacks were? CEO Demers stated that a minimum of 10 feet to the side lot line and an
accumulation of 30 feet.
CEO
Demers asked if this could be considered a Best Possible Location? Roger A. stated that it was not. Roger stated that it was an 80 square foot
structure, with a height no greater than 8 feet, that could not go any closer
to the water than the existing structure. He said the permitting would be the responsibility of the CEO, not the
Planning Board.
Roger
A. asked if there were any additional questions? There were none. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes –
December 10, 2019 5
of 10
The
third proposed addition to the ordinance read as follows:
§105-15. Definitions Retaining
Wall – Retaining Wall is a structure that retains (holds back) any material
(usually earth) and prevents it from sliding or eroding away. It is designed to
resist the material pressure of the material it is holding back. Low
Retaining Wall – A low retaining wall is considered to be a wall less than 24
inches in height measured from the base of the wall to the top of the
wall. The base is considered the area
exposed that can be seen upon visual inspection. Roger
A. stated that these were added to support the new ordinance for low retaining
walls being proposed.
Roger
A. asked if there were any additional questions? There were none. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The
last proposed addition to the ordinance read as follows:
§105-17. Land uses. RP SD GP
FD SP Low
Retaining Walls2 NO CU CU/CEO
NO CU
Roger
A. asked if there were any questions?
Mr.
Reeves asked if there was a specific material that had to be used for the new
walls or could it be made out of anything such as concrete, stone, brick,
etc. Roger A. stated that the wall could
be no greater than 2 feet in height but it could be made out of any material
that would work.
Bill
Mageary asked if you were required to get 1 permit per wall or could you get a
permit for all the walls at one time, if you were going to put up multiple
walls? He also asked what if it was
going to be three years between the time you put up the first wall and the time
you put up the next wall, was there a time limit for the permit? Roger A. stated that you could get a permit
for one wall or all of them at once if you knew you would be having additional
walls. He said they could all be
permitted at the same time. He did note
however that the Conditional Use Permit and building permit were only good for
2 years, so if you did not think all the walls would be finished in 2 years,
you likely would need to do it on separate permits.
Steve
F. added that the Planning Board and the ordinance want construction time to be
at a minimum, therefore, the board will put an end date on the permit. He said in part, this keeps disturbance at a
minimum and it is also for erosion control purposes.
CEO
Demers asked what the difference was between a CU and CEO permit in the General
Purpose District? The board was not
sure? Roger A. thought it had to do with
earth moving, because these walls are not size specific. Madge B. and CEO Demers could not remember
anyone having to get a permit for a
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes –
December 10, 2019 6
of 10
wall
in the General Purpose District. Barbara
F. thought perhaps that this should be changed to ‘Allowed’ or ‘Yes’ under GP.
Several
board members also questioned whether or not Note 2 applied which reads in
part, ‘Dimensional requirements in the underlying zoning district shall
apply’. Because the wall is allowed up to
the boundary, it will not meet the 10 foot side setback, so perhaps Note 2
should be removed. Roger A. thought the
reason the board added the possibility of requiring a survey was so the wall
could go up to the side lot line, so he agreed this needed to be discussed
further, as Note 2 may not apply.
Madge
B. stated that the 10 foot side setback may not apply to the shed as well, she
was not sure. CEO Demers asked if the
shed could go up to the border? Steve F.
stated this was new territory, so the board needs to talk more about what the
intention of the changes are, but he felt this was a good start. CEO Demers stated that both permits will
require a PBR through the DEP and so they will have an approved plan. He felt the board would just have to rubber
stamp it.
Maggie
M. wondered if the side setback could be like for new trees, 5 feet from the
side lot line, or something similar. CEO
Demers thought the 5 feet for trees was so you didn’t have all the trees in a
straight line along the border. Maggie
added that it was also so that you were not planting on the lot line. Roger A. agreed.
Steve
F. stated that the board would need to look at §105-35 ‘Accessory buildings’ as
well, because he didn’t think it would apply with this new ordinance, so
perhaps a notation would need to be made there as well.
The
board agreed to take any questions back up at the next meeting and the next
Public Hearing for the ordinance changes after final revisions will be held on
Tuesday, January 28, 2020 at 6:00 p.m.
Nothing
further was discussed. ************************* The minutes from Tuesday,
November 12, 2019 were approved as written.
The minutes from Tuesday,
November 26, 2019 were amended as follows: Madge
Baker stated that under the approved Growth Permits, Permit GP #18-19, it
states that Pump Box brook may be located on the property, or a stream of
significance. Madge wanted it in the
record that Pump Box Brook is not located on that parcel of property. She did note that there is water in that
area.
The Planning Board
meeting started at 6:30 p.m. *************************
Madge
Baker spoke about the Three Rivers Land Trust and what they were doing presently
and how it related to the Town of Shapleigh.
Madge
began by stating that when reviewing the Comprehensive Plan from 2005, she was
pleasantly surprised how much it mirrored what the Land Trust was trying to do
with respect to preserving farm land and forest with respect to conservation. She stated that the Land Trust updated their
maps and provided members with copies to review. Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes –
December 10, 2019 7
of 10
Climate
Resiliency Map - Madge explained that lands with high resiliency tend to have the
following characteristics: existing high density and variety of wildlife,
unbroken forests, topographic variety, micro-climates. The map showed the majority of the land owned
by the Three Rivers Land Trust is above average in climate resiliency. She said, “Also on the map is a focus area of
the Land Trust and in Shapleigh it is primarily Fort Ridge and the Pump Box
Brook watershed; for all of the reasons listed, ‘micro-climate’, lots of up and
down, wonderful vernal pools, these are a great wildlife habitat and it is
unbroken forest, because there are no public roads.”
Madge
said she was nuts about the subject of climate change. She said she believed it was real and coming,
and she would love to see Shapleigh be more proactive. She agreed it was a hard topic.
Farmland
Map – Madge said what Three Rivers Land Trust is interested in is prime
agricultural lands. She said they just
got an easement on David Mann’s land on Hooper Road. She said there is some prime Ag land. She noted the Comp. Plan speaks of protection
of high value agricultural land. She
noted again the overlap between Three Rivers and the Town’s Comprehensive Plan.
Forest
Resources Map – Madge stated they are always looking for unbroken forested land
and blocks of land. She noted the Three
Rivers Land Trust owned an easement on Ron Prevoir’s land which shows up on the
map, because it provides a corridor between the wildlife refuge and the
Waterboro Barrens. Madge said the
Comprehensive Plan also talks about protecting wildlife corridors.
Recreation
Resources Map – Madge stated the Land Trust believed if people couldn’t use the
land they would not be so keen on protecting it thru conservation. She said they have always tried to promote
use. She said it’s one reason the William’s
property is a neat place, she noted the Town of Shapleigh owned it not the Land
Trust. She said it was very accessible
to the public. She noted the 5th
grade going to the site in the spring.
Madge
said there was a problem with North Shapleigh Pond because there was no public
access at present. She said the Land
Trust had acquired Hanson Pond but this also has an issue with access. She said
they were putting in a walking trail but you wouldn’t be able to put in a
boat.
Water
Resources Map – Madge said it was easy to know why water is so important to
preserve.
Anna
Desmond was also present for this discussion. Madge wanted to know if Anna wanted to add anything or if any of the
board members wanted to add something that they care about? She asked if what she spoke of sounded good
to the board, and did any members want to talk about priorities?
Madge
stated that Three Rivers Land Trust has been trying to purchase land in the
Pump Box Brook watershed since creation. Madge stated that Bill Hutchens and Charlie Gruber wrote to every
landowner in the past in that area, saying if they ever wanted to sell or
conserve the property to please let the Trust know. Madge believed acquisition is important
because of the climate issue. She also
believed education was very important. She
said they need resources to be able to pay people to educate others. She asked members how they felt about land
purchases?
Steve
F. believed it comes down to landowner education. Madge said it made sense. Steve said he liked the idea of conservation,
and he believed there was room for a mix with what he did (Realtor) and what Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes –
December 10, 2019 8
of 10
the
Land Trust wanted to do. He said he
pushed people into considering cluster subdivisions and to build toward the road. He felt it was smarter to do a small cluster than
putting in an expensive road, as well as conserving the backland. He said people need places to live but there
is a smart way to do it. He thinks
whether someone is selling their land on their own or with an agent, it makes
sense to show them what might be a good idea. He said it is their land but it is important to show the benefits of an
easement, or selling their backland to the Trust. Madge agreed.
Madge
B. noted the Town Forest was used for recreation. Madge said the Conservation Commission
created a trail. Anna Desmond stated
that they have made great strides in creating a trail which is marked. She said some know about it and in the past
it got some bad reviews, but now it is well marked and should be completed by
late spring. She noted the Boy Scouts
did some work on it, along with the Conservation Commission and
volunteers. She said they were proud
about that. Anna asked in terms of
climate change, was there anything we should think about with the Zoning Ordinance. She asked if the issues have been
addressed? Anna thought that the Town
has addressed some of what they discussed.
Roger
A. stated that over time the Planning Board has tried to conserve and enhance
water quality. He stated that everyone
that has been on the board has tried to limit erosion issues and problems
related to storm water issues. Roger
noted he owned a large piece of property and hoped to retain it for
recreational uses for his family.
Anna
D. stated that it was apparent there was some very forward thinking done years
ago, people who recognized the importance of preservation of land, water and
the wildlife. Madge agreed, stating that
the Town Forest was a good example of that. Anna said the reason there is a trail there now for people to use, is
because the Town Forest exists.
Roger
A. added that the Town creating the soccer fields for the children was a great
thing. He said many people looked at
preserving land for future use, noting today it probably could not be
done. Madge and Anna agreed, with the
amount of land preserved, they were grateful to those in the past who thought
about preservation for future generations.
Steve
F. said one thing the board could do is to take a look at the village areas and
bolster that, short of having public water and sewer. He said at present there is no village, Shapleigh’s
four villages are no longer. He believed
at some point perhaps they could address this.
Steve
F. asked Madge what her ideas were? Madge felt the board should take up the Comprehensive Plan and look at
it. She believed the board has done some
of the things they thought should be done, but perhaps there was more the board
could look at. Madge said in 2005 it
talked about increasing density, and the board did do it. She wanted to go back through the list the
board created. Madge also wanted to see
the wetlands protected as much as possible. She said the wetland protection in zoning now was not great.
Steve
F. said from a practical standpoint, from his viewpoint, if someone sees
wetland grass people are typically not interested. He felt there was better land out there. He said he was not suggesting taking it off
the priority list, but he felt from a developer standpoint if they see wetlands
they see unusable land.
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes –
December 10, 2019 9
of 10
Steve
F. asked if wetlands can be used toward land area calculations. CEO Demers said that yes, you can for dimensional
requirements. Steve said Acton does not
allow it. CEO Demers said in Acton if
you create a private drive, the private drive does not go towards the
dimensional requirements. CEO Demers
said he didn’t see anything here that prohibits. Roger A. said wetlands are subtracted only
under subdivision (§89-26). Roger said
with respect to a 2 acre private lot, the wetland is not subtracted. CEO Demers asked if it was in the subdivision
regulations? Roger said it was under
subdivision. Steve said if you are on a
non-conforming lot of record, no one is looking at the wetland. Roger agreed. Roger said the structure will have to be placed to keep it away from the
wetland, so if you have a small lot it could be an issue.
Steve
F. stated that in Acton, the bigger the wetland the further the setback. Madge said ok, she liked that. Steve thought it was too much. Madge said wetlands are very important,
especially along Pump Box Brook. Steve
said it was because it was part of the tributary. Madge said, “That is it!”
The
board agreed to look at the existing Comprehensive Plan. Barbara will provide a copy of the changes
enacted in 2016.
Madge
asked if the board would like a copy of the maps. Steve F. stated he would and he would like it
downloaded onto the website. He said
several years ago it was discussed with the Selectmen and everyone was in favor
of doing overlays of the town map, but he was frustrated that to date it has
not happened. Madge said she agreed it
was important and Steve McDonough also wanted them because they are very
important. Steve F. said the town needs
to decide what is important, and noted these maps would help to educate the
public as well. Barbara F. did not think
some people knew how much these maps are utilized by the board, CEO, and the
public and what an asset good maps would be. Roger A. said he went out and got a proposal to do the layers and gave
the information to the Selectmen. Roger
said he understood it has to go out to bid, but the criteria for the maps should
be what the Planning Board and CEO need, as they utilize them, as do other
people in town. CEO Demers stated there
was a reason Shapleigh had low taxes. Steve did not disagree but you have to look at what is important. Maggie M. added that the longer you wait the
more expensive it gets, and the town is not in danger of going broke.
Madge
B. thanked members for listening and she looked forward to future discussions. *************************
Growth Permits The
year ended with 16 Growth Permits available and 2 for Habitat for Humanity.
*************************
The Planning Board meeting ended at 7:20
p.m. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There
will be no meeting held on Tuesday, December 24, 2019.
The
next meeting will be held Tuesday, January
14, 2020 at 6:30 p.m.
Shapleigh Planning Board Minutes –
December 10, 2019 10
of 10
NOTE: The winter hours
are in effect thru March 31st, the meetings now begin at 6:30 p.m. and
any scheduled public hearing begins at 6:00 p.m.
The
Planning Board meets the 2nd and 4th Tuesday of each
month unless it falls on a holiday or Election Day. 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.
Respectfully
submitted, Barbara
Felong, Land Use Secretary
|
||||
Planning Board
January 26, 2020 6:46 PM