03-22-2012 Workshop meeting

Dayton Planning Board

Workshop Meeting
March 22, 2012


Members Present: Remi Caron (Chair), Dan Plourde, Pat Sughrue, Dick Hall, Valerie Cole (Alt.)

Others Present: Jim Roberts (CEO), Attorney David Ordway, Ed and Sarah LeBlanc, Lisa and Steve Morse, Howard Cushman


  • Meeting started at 7:10 PM.
  • Chair Remi Caron stated he is recusing himself as he is related to one of the parties involved.
  • Purpose of the workshop is to review the subdivision application and checklist presented by the LeBlancs, with the guidance of Attorney Ordway, in preparation for a special Planning Board meeting on March 27, 2012.
  • Dick Hall agreed to chair the workshop.
  • It was clarified to the Board that if the Board chooses to waive requirements or standards, there needs to be written findings of fact for each item. (See Article 13, Dayton Subdivision Regulations)
  • In regard to Remi Caron’s intent to recuse himself, Attorney Ordway explained that relation to one of the parties involved does not always constitute automatic disqualification. If the Board wishes to have a person with a possible conflict of interest participate, that person should be presented to the Board and the decision is made by the Board. Automatic disqualifications would include immediate family members and the potential of financial gain.
  • It was noted that Remi Caron is not related to the applicants. He intends to continue to recuse himself.
  • After discussion regarding the definition of a road, it was determined that this is a major subdivision and not a minor, because of the road. It was also determined that the Secretary had supplied the LeBlanc’s lawyer with a copy of the minor subdivision checklist, not the one for a major subdivision. Planning Board members, Attorney Ordway, and the LeBlancs were supplied with the proper checklist.
  • It was determined that the checklists for minor and major subdivisions are very similar, with additional questions on the major. Members determined that much of the information provided on the minor checklist could be transferred to the major.
  • Members reviewed the major subdivision checklist and made the following findings:


Sketch plan submission:

Contains lot and street layout yes

Contains significant natural features yes

Supporting data:

Application form completed to be determined

Copy of USGS topographical map indicating development area included yes

Planning Board Components:

Conformity with zoning and comprehensive plan yes

Site inspection: held in 2006

Subdivision classification and contour determination:

Planning Board classifies as major subdivision yes

Planning Board determines contour elevation to be used yes


            Original recording plan and seven paper copies provided yes

            Indicates name of subdivision, municipality, tax map and lot numbers yes

Perimeter survey, bearings and distances, surveyor’s or engineers seal, monumentation missing surveyor’s seal (Ed LeBlanc noted that this may be because the Cushman’s lot was based on a deed description, not actual survey)

            Contour elevations, number of acres in subdivision not applicable

            Lot lines, numbers and sizes, building set back lines waived at this point in the meeting

            Limits of existing vegetation and type, physical features of special interest waived

            Existing water bodies, water courses, wetlands, public and private right-of-way and         easements yes

Scale both written and graphic, date, and north point yes

Owner and applicants names, addresses, and name and address of individual who prepared plan, and abutters’ names yes

Contains zoning boundaries not applicable as it is located in one zone

Location of proposed sewers and water lines not applicable

Location and width of proposed and existing streets yes

Location of parking, open space, conservation and/or recreation areas not applicable

Storm drainage plan not applicable

Erosion/sediment control plan not applicable

County soil survey portion yes

Base flood elevation not shown

            Supporting Documentation:

                        Neighboring subdivisions not applicable

                        Existing and proposed streets yes

                        Zoning boundaries not applicable

                        Copy of deed, verification of ownership or legal interest yes

                        Existing and proposed deed restrictions, easements or other encumbrances yes

                        Soil report from licensed site evaluator on test pits to be provided by Lisa Morse

                        Hydrogeological survey if requested not applicable

                        Letter from SCS on soil erosion and control plan to be provided

                        Approximate flag centerline of all streets and test pits yes

                        Application fee not yet paid

                        Written request for waivers or variances yes

                        Additional information requested by Planning Board not applicable

            Planning Board Review:

                        Detailed receipt issued to applicant not yet

                        Determination whether submission complete to be determined

                        Public hearing scheduled within 30 days of complete submission not applicable

                        Planning Board acts on plan to approve, modify, table for additional information or deny

                                    application not applicable

                        Plan complies with subdivision standards for roads, lots, etc. not applicable

                        Plan complies with shore land and/or local zoning requirement yes

                        Written notice to applicant of Planning Board action to be completed

When applicable, DEP, Dept of Marine Resources, Dept of Transportation, Army Corps of Engineers permits shall be obtained prior to final submission not applicable


Final Plan and Documents

                        Original recording plan and 7 paper copies of plan yes

                        Subdivision name, municipality, tax map and lot numbers yes

                        Scale, written and graphic, date, north point, abutters’ yes

Lot lines, numbers, bearings and distances, monumentation, building setback lines, surveyor’s or engineer’s seal missing setback lines and surveyor’s seal

Area of subdivision yes

Existing water bodies, water courses, and wetlands, public and private right-of-way and easements yes

Easements not applicable, none

Date, north point, graphic scale yes

Owner and applicant’s name and address, name and address of person preparing plan yes

Zoning boundaries yes

Location of sewers, water lines, culverts, drainage ways not applicable

Locations, dimensions, profiles of underground utilities, typical cross sections and profile of streets, width of pavement not applicable

Base Flood elevation not in flood zone

Signature block for Planning Board yes

Supporting documentation:

                        Hydrogeological study if requested not applicable

                        Approval by Me Dept of Human Services or Me DEP not applicable

                        Conditions of dedication of public facilities or open space not applicable

                        Road construction estimates not applicable

                        Construction schedule estimate and financial report not applicable

                        Performance guarantee not applicable

                        Application fee not yet paid

Planning Board Review:

                        Dated receipt issued to applicant not yet issued

                        Determination whether submission complete to be determined

                        Notification to applicant of completeness of submission not yet issued

                        Public hearing scheduled within 30 days of complete submission not applicable

Notification of road commissioner, school superintendent, police and fire chiefs, request for comments not applicable

Written notice of applicant of Board’s decision and findings that the development meets or fails to meet the following guidelines as well as the standards in the Board’s regulations not yet issued


Will not result in undue water or air pollution

Will have sufficient water available for the foreseeable needs of the subdivision

Will not cause an unreasonable burden on the existing water supply

Will not cause unreasonable soil erosion or reduction in the capacity of land to hold water so that a dangerous or unhealthy condition results

Will not cause unreasonable traffic congestion or result in unsafe conditions on existing or proposed roads

Will provide adequate sewage waste disposal

Will not cause an unreasonable burden on municipal solid waste disposal

Will not have an adverse effect on the scenic or natural beauty of the area, aesthetics, significant wildlife habitat, historic sites or rare and irreplaceable natural areas, public rights to the shoreline

Will conform to local regulations, ordinances, development plan and comprehensive plan

Will not adversely affect the quality of surface water or shoreline of ponds, wetlands, rivers, streams, or tidal areas

Will not alone or in conjunction with existing activities adversely affect ground water quality or quantity

Has not demonstrated adequate technical and financial capacity to meet the above

Will have all buildings one foot above the base flood elevation

Will not create shorefront lots


  • During the checklist Attorney Ordway noted that it is important to have copies of the soil survey. Ed LeBlanc said that the soil map showed the same type of soil over the whole portion and that Al Frick had conducted three test pits on the larger portion.
  • Planning Board is waiting on: application fee, soil survey, test pit information, surveyor’s seal
  • Morses indicated they could provide information based on their daughter’s lot
  • Waivers under discussion:

Building setback- anyone seeking a building permit will need to provide this

            Combined lot widths: Board does not have an issue

Base flood elevation: Jim Roberts noted that the land is part of the flood plain. Attorney Ordway indicated that a map is sufficient to provide flood plain information.

  • Remi Caron reminded the Board that it needs to document the reasons for waivers.
  • Dick Hall noted that regarding the waiver for the road, this is an after-the-fact approval and the road is standing up to current use. From this point forward anything that happens to this property is subject to current zoning and subdivision regulations.
  • Attorney Ordway reminded the Board that it can’t waive an ordinance, but it can make a finding that the ordinance did not exist in 2005. The Board needs to consider performance standards at the time; it appears the Board is considering reducing those standards as well. If the road did not meet standards at that time, a written finding needs to be established. One issue is whether public health and safety is satisfied. The Board needs to decide if that was a requirement in the subdivision regulations in 2005. There is a general requirement for public safety issues such as plowing, turn-around, width for emergency vehicles, so this needs to be part of the discussion.
  • The Board should look to Section 12.10 of the Subdivision Regulations with regard to streets: this language needs to be on the plan.
  • Attorney Ordway noted that the statute sets timing requirements in terms of the subdivision process; i.e. notification of a complete or incomplete application, public hearings.
  • Performance guarantees are waived because future construction will be required to deal with it.
  • Several Board members intend to meet at Bickford Road on Saturday morning to take measurements. The Morses suggested that the members look at the extension beyond their daughter’s house.
  • Attorney Ordway advised that in this case the Board may want to schedule a site walk for all members so that they all see the conditions at the same time. It is not necessary for the members to record the meeting: they can take their own notes.
  • Mr. Cushman stated that he had assumed all three lots would be legal for building. He understands that he has to meet setbacks and follow building code. He feels the Board is passing a subdivision that currently has unbuildable lots. He bought the lot with the intention of building.
  • Board members explained that there have been changes to the standards since this subdivision was created. Even if someone bought land in 2005 and it wasn’t in a subdivision, the road still would need to be improved because of the addition of houses. With road improvements, the unbuildable lots will become buildable.
  • The Morses asked for a statement that the third home that is built will have the responsibility of widening the road to 20 feet, with the understanding that the road won’t be required to be paved.
  • Dick Hall clarified that the road will need to be upgraded with the addition of the next house and will have to have a hammerhead.
  • Should the Morses choose to start a subdivision; the road requirement will start at that physical point.
  • Attorney Ordway noted that this task has highlighted deficiencies in Dayton’s subdivision regulations. One example is the reliance on Title 30, which has been repealed by the state.
  • The LeBlancs were given a notice of incomplete application and notified that the following are missing: application fee, soil survey, test pit information, surveyor’s seal.
  • Members of the public left at 9:05 PM. Board members remained to ask Attorney Ordway some additional questions.
  • After discussion, the Board decided to contact the LeBlancs and ask them to include the following items: floodplain, setbacks on the stream and building envelopes as determined by the 2005 regulations.






Valerie J. Cole, Secretary



Remi Caron, Chair

COPIES TO: Jim Roberts, Code Enforcement Officer; Selectmen; and Tax Assessor