WELLS — Members of the Wells Planning Board will review the final application for a controversial proposed condominium complex during a meeting on Monday evening and could either reject or greenlight the project.

Developer The Landings LLC of Leominster, Massachusetts, is seeking to create a multi-family subdivision called Harborside Village that would include 26 duplex units in 13 buildings and 16 single-family condominium units on a 19.45 acre parcel of land off Stephen Eaton Lane via Papa Smurf Lane and Bourassa Lane. Residents living nearby have protested the proposal since it was first announced in 2017 for a number of reasons.

The proposed development would require future residents to enter and exit the subdivision via Stephen Eaton Lane, which is a dead end road, to access U.S. Route 1 and beyond. A secondary, gated access point would be on Bourassa Lane, also a dead end road, which would empty onto Stephen Eaton Lane to gain entry to U.S. Route 1.

Bourassa Lane resident Grace Trifaro is one of hundreds of area residents who object to the proposed development.

“I’m very concerned about the congestion and the dangers with the increase of traffic on Stephen Eaton Lane and Bourassa Lane from this development,” she said. “The U.S. Route 1 intersection is already difficult to maneuver.”

Last summer Wells Town Engineer Michael Livingston acknowledged that traffic from Stephen Eaton Lane onto U.S. Route 1 is a problem and the intersection is highly congested, especially in summer months with the influx of tourists. However, he said, according to a traffic study and a peer review by the firm Gorrill Palmer, which has an office in South Portland, the number of new trips “wasn’t going to adversely affect” that intersection.

Gorrill Palmer conducted its first peer review, which was sent to Livingston in May, prior to the results of a Maine Traffic Resource traffic study.

A summary of that review by Gorrill Palmer Project Manager Randy Dunton, indicates “significant concerns” with the intersection of Stephen Eaton Lane/Route 1.”

The review examined a number of curb cuts associated with a car wash business located at the intersection and determined that as a result of this the existing geometry “impacts the safety of the intersection and the ability to safely increase the traffic volume through this intersection.”

Another peer review

However, after reviewing a separate June traffic study, Gorrill Palmer conducted another peer review, provided to the town on June 26, which downplayed earlier concerns. “We concur (with the study) that the proposed development will not significantly impact the existing levels of service,” Dunton wrote.

Trifaro said she disagrees with the findings of the second peer review and said it uses outdated information from studies done between 2002 and 2013.

“On Aug. 13, a week after the Planning Board narrowly approved the Pre-Application for Harborside Village by a vote of 3-2, at about 3:20 pm, a three-car accident at the intersection of Harbor Road and Route 1 occurred,” Trifaro said. “According to the draft for possible denial of the pre-application for the proposed Harborside Village, a reason to deny the pre-application states on page 15 of 17: ‘Also, a safety condition exists with the total number of accidents reported from Coggshall Lane to the intersection of Route 1 and Route 109.'”

She said that it was revealed in facts and findings of the draft to deny the pre-application of the project that the number of daily average trips will increase from 248 average daily trips to 714 average daily trips because of the proposed subdivision and the Planning Board actually found that the 48-plus percentage increase in trips will cause unreasonable congestion.

According to Trifaro, a Traffic Impact Study in June 2018 was paid for by the developer of Harborside Village and was clearly biased, showing minimal adverse impact on Stephen Eaton Lane and omitted the number of increased Average Daily Trips into the neighborhood.

Resident MaryLee Maldonis also objects to the proposed subdivision and said the final paperwork the developer filed with the Town Planning Office failed to meet basic requirements established by the Wells Planning Board.

“This submission was obviously thrown together and presented without the necessary and essential permits from the Department of Environmental Protection and the Army Corps of Engineers,” Maldonis said. “Why would the Planning Department even consider accepting this application?  How many other applications have been pushed through without going through the proper criteria for acceptance, and one must ask, why? And why this one?”

She said that the responsibility of Wells Planning Board members is to adhere to regulations they created.

“In Chapter 202, Subdivision of Land,  202-2, Purpose: Criteria for Approval, it says ‘the purposes of these regulations are to assure the comfort, convenience, safety, health and welfare of the people of the Town of Wells, to protect the environment,” she said. “In Regulation 202-5 it says ‘Will not cause unreasonable highway or public road congestion or unsafe conditions with respect to use of the highways or public roads existing or proposed.’ Are these empty statements, with no meaning? Can you honestly say, and would a court agree, that these regulations, created by you to protect us, the citizens of the town of Wells, are being upheld by you with regard to this development?”

Missing requirements

Trifaro said the final approval paperwork should not have been accepted by the Wells Planning Office as it lacked approval from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection, under the Site Location of Development Act and the Natural Resources Protection Act; an Army Corps of Engineers dredge and fill permit; and a NPDES permit for stormwater discharges.

Resident Chase Delaney also opposes the project and said the developers made no changes and progress since the pre-application for the subdivision was considered last summer.

“This application is absolutely not worthy of an extension,” Delaney said. “In fact, their recent submission is backwards in terms of progress, with 42 proposed units on the plan, not the 41 required by this board for the previously granted ‘pre-approval’ status. This nonexistent progress and sloppy work would never be deemed acceptable in a fifth-grade classroom and should not be acceptable to a legitimate planning board who takes their role as public servants seriously.”

Kathleen Quimby of  Wells said she is concerned that the project disrupt wildlife habitat and wetlands, including two vernal pools at the proposed subdivision site.

“I believe that the Planning Board has not provided the ‘Land Bank’ as an opportunity to turn the 19.45 acres into a land trust to maintain and protect this natural ecosystem of wetlands and vernal pools,” she said.

At the Monday meeting, the Wells Planning Board will consider receipt of the Final Subdivision Application; consider compliance with Preliminary Conditions of Approval and final completeness requirements; and consider a request from the developers for additional time to satisfy conditions of approval and obtain approvals from Maine Department of Environmental Protection and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

In a Feb. 13 letter to the Wells Town planner, Jones and Beach Engineers, which has been working with The Landings LLC on the project, said the developer is seeking an extension of 180 days to satisfy pre-approval conditions and obtain approvals from MDEP and the Army Corps of Engineers. That same letter says the developer may need additional time to resolve environmental concerns before finalizing the roadway layout and stormwater design requirements.

— Executive Editor Ed Pierce can be reached at 282-1535 or by email at editor@journaltribune.com 

Copy the Story Link

Comments are not available on this story.