DAYTON PLANNING BOARD
Regular Meeting
January 17, 2005
Members Present: David Clark, Rose Hill, Heather Pinet, Jack Taylor, Ron Wormwood
Absent: Nancy Harriman
Others Present: CEO Jim Roberts, Jane Preston, Barbara Peterson, Michael Frappier, Andy Morrell
Administrative Business:
Chairman David Clark called the meeting to order at 7:10 PM.
The December 20, 2004 Regular Meeting minutes were read and approved with a minor change.
Old Business
TAYLOR SUBDIVISION:
Jack Taylor removed himself from the Board except to answer specific questions about the development.
Board members received copies of revised plans for the Pinefield Subdivision, including a topographic map, soil survey map, and F.E.M.A. map. The following changes were detailed in the cover letter:
The project meets all of the major subdivision requirements; no waivers are required.
The acreage for the four lots was added to the plans.
A streetlight was added at the intersection of the roadway and Union Falls Rd.
Site distances on Union Falls Rd. were detailed.
A topographic survey was completed by BH2M.
The roadway was moved approximately 60 feet east; lots reconfigured accordingly.
Wetland alteration information added, should not require a Maine D.E.P permit.
Roadway should not impact abutters (description of roadway).
Stormwater runoff will be collected in vegetated ditches with stone-check dams and discharged to a level spreader. There should be no impact to abutting lots.
A detail sheet was added to the plans.
Mr. Morrell explained that the wetlands alteration (#7) would consist of filling in part of the ditches on the north side of Lot 2. This area is small enough that a permit will not be required from Maine D.E.P. Water will flow into ditches on either the west or the east side of the property, then through culverts and into existing ditches. The road has been moved to accommodate this drainage pattern.
Rose Hill asked how the level spreader works and Dave Clark asked who would maintain it. Mr. Morrell explained how the level spreader releases water at a slower rate to prevent erosion, and noted that it should be cleaned out every six months or so. The residents will be expected to do this, as noted in the road agreement. It can be written into the agreement that if this is not done, the town has the right to come in and fix the problem.
A resident asked if the drainage system would be built to handle the runoff from melting snowbanks and ice. Mr. Morrell explained that the system is designed to standards dictated by a twenty-five year storm or 4-1/2 inches of rain in a 24-hour period. The resident expressed concern over the possibility that salt and sand may not be properly filtered if the system overflows.
Another resident asked if the water would go where it is supposed to, even in spring flooding. Mr. Morrell indicated that the slope to the creek has sufficient elevation to drain properly. (See Sheet 3 in the plan). He explained how the vegetated ditches and stone-check dams should work to provide proper drainage. Another resident noted that the dams would need to be cleaned out as well, as leaves could impede or halt drainage. Jim Roberts asked if the dams would be taken out and Mr. Morrell replied that they could either remain in place or be removed.
Dave Clark asked if the 12 inch culvert would be large enough to handle the flow, noting that 60 feet of 12-inch culvert could be difficult to clean out. He also asked how the size was determined. Mr. Morrell answered that it was based on the capacity of the ditch located near the road, and that a study could be conducted if the board members wished. He also explained that the culverts had been designed to handle the water coming off the road, not from the house lots.
A resident asked where the rest of the water would drain, given that the ditches will be partially filled in to the north of Lot 2. Board members questioned whether or not the topography and the current ditches could handle the volume of water, and if corrugated pipe should be installed underground. Mr. Morrell explained that only a small part of the ditches would be filled in and the remaining ditches should be able to handle the water. He expressed concern that corrugated pipes in the vicinity of a house’s foundation could cause problems in the case of large storms. He noted that Lot 2 will probably require fill and that it should be graded to direct water to the new ditches by the road. A resident expressed concern that the cellar walls might act as a dam and prevent water flow; Mr. Morrell explained that there
would be foundation ditches around the houses.
Another resident asked if there would be more water in the ditches to the left of the property. Mr. Morrell felt that there would be less, as the front of the lots would drain to the new road. Jim Roberts noted that there probably was a need for a bigger culvert. Dave Clark said that the issue should be examined more.
A resident questioned the effect of the 100-Year Flood Boundary on Lot 3. Mr. Morrell referenced Note 14 on Sheet 1, noting that the boundary was taken from the Flood Insurance Rate Map of 1981, but he felt that given the elevation there should be little to no impact on the lot.
Dave Clark noted again that the culvert size needed more study. Mr. Morrell agreed to do so.
A resident expressed concern about the run-off from Lot 1 towards the Youngs’ house. Mr. Morrell explained that he expects water to drain in two directions away from Lot 1 and that the Youngs’ house shouldn’t be impacted. He felt that installing an additional ditch on the backside of Lot 1 and Youngs’ property could be detrimental in that it may direct more water toward Union Falls Road.
Rose Hill asked about the capacity of a 12-inch culvert; Mr. Morrell was unsure. Jim Roberts noted that many culverts in Dayton are 16 inches. Mr. Morrell explained that the heavily vegetated ditches should help considerably in draining, as they will allow the water to filter into the ground. He noted that it could be written into the deeds that homeowners cannot fill in more than a certain amount in the drainage ditches without a permit.
Rose asked if there were any septic issues. Mr. Morrell indicated that all four lots have passed the perc test, which was done in October by Mr. Tom Milligan (Note 13). A resident noted that the person who placed the wetlands flags told her that he thought the first two lots would have septic problems. Dave Clark noted that the plans indicated that the test pits were on high spots. Mr. Morrell said that the Board had the information from the tests and that each lot tested well above standard, and that the other person had been hired for wetlands review, not site inspections.
Rose Hill asked if the streetlight would be installed at the developer’s expense and Dave Clark asked how it would be billed by CMP. Mr. Morrell replied that although he had not yet talked with CMP, typically a pole would have its own meter or the expense would be dispersed among the residents of the development. Residents indicated that they would rather not have a streetlight at the intersection with Union Falls Road, but were not against having road signs. Jack Taylor said that he had included a streetlight as a safety benefit, and asked that a streetlight not be prohibited if a need arose for it later. Board members agreed that the streetlight would not be a requirement yet could be installed if the developer deemed it necessary. Jack also noted that the guinea hen clause had been deleted.
Board members went through the Major subdivision checklist and felt that everything was in order at that point with two exceptions:
The Board would like a study to determine if a 12 inch culvert will be sufficient to handle drainage needs
The developer is awaiting a letter of approval from the Soil and Conservation Service
Mr. Morrell noted that a receipt could be issued to Jack Taylor with the above exceptions noted.
Jim Roberts questioned the number of lots and whether Mr. Michael Frappier’s lot needed to be included as Lot 6, assuming that Youngs’ lot is considered to be Lot 5. Dave Clark noted that this should be investigated further. If the two lots must be numbered, then the Board would like to see the acreage and lot numbers on the map.
The Board will require a speed limit sign, a “blind drive” sign, and a stop sign. Trash pick-up also needs to be addressed by the developer. A holding bin was suggested for safety reasons and to keep animals out.
The discussion will be continued at the next regular meeting on February 21, 2005. At that time the Board plans to finish the preliminary approval process and look at the final review.
PRESTON GRAVEL PIT: The Preston Pit discussion will resume at the March 21, 2005 meeting.
New Business
No new business was discussed.
The meeting ended at 8:30 PM. The next meeting is scheduled for Monday, February 21, 2005 at 7:30 PM at the Town Hall.
__________________________________________________Date:_____________________
Valerie J. Cole, Secretary
__________________________________________________Date:______________________
David Clark, Chairman
COPIES TO: Jim Roberts, Code Enforcement Officer, and Selectmen
THESE MINUTES MAY NOT BE TRANSCRIBED VERBATIM. SECTIONS MAY BE PARAPHRASED FOR CLARITY.
| 
